Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second Time on Thursday 20 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post Offices

Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement about development of services at post offices. [128940]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In the statement on the post office network on 28 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a range of proposals and measures drawn from the performance and innovation unit's report and designed to modernise and sustain the post office network. Among them were proposals to develop new areas of business and services, utilising the modern online computer system that is being installed in every post office throughout the country and to which the Government are contributing almost £500 million.

Ms Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. I am particularly interested in the universal bank. Could he tell us more about the way in which that will be taken forward? In particular, given that most of the people who take up that type of banking service are unbanked because they have not been able to get bank accounts, would it be possible for the universal bank to be given mutual status? That may be appropriate as the conventional banking sector has, by and large, failed those people.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. The universal bank is central to the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit's report, which contains a helpful chart setting out what should be available through a universal bank. That includes getting cash out of the post office and cashing cheques at the post office. Perhaps more importantly, people will not be allowed to go into debt. Discussions are taking place between the Post Office

and the high street banks. We have given a clear message that the Government fully support the concept of a universal bank. It is consistent with the banks' obligations under the financial exclusions set out by policy action team 14. The idea of involving mutuals and perhaps credit unions is for the Post Office to take forward in those discussions.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister quantify the universal bank's contribution towards making good the loss of one third of revenues that sub-post offices will experience as a result of the cancellation of the Department of Social Security contract? Will he confirm that a bank—the Girobank—already operates through post offices? Will the universal bank compete with that bank? What contribution does the existing bank make to post office services? Can he confirm the figure in the PIU report that the maximum contribution that banking services will make to the revenues of post offices is just £50 million?

Mr. Johnson: I am surprised—the right hon. Member usually asks about the private finance initiative that was previously established, so he is changing his tack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question. The PIU expects a combination of the universal bank and the other aspects in the report in large measure to make up for the loss of income from the move to automated credit transfer.
More important, the universal bank is not being established as a re-run of the national Girobank. It will facilitate access to existing bank accounts. It will be both a substitute distribution system and a social bank. The two together mean that, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, people will be able to present a smart card at the post office, instead of a benefit payment book, to access their pensions and benefits free of charge across a post office counter. That is similar to the position that everyone hoped we would be in had the benefit payment card, of which the right hon. Gentleman was the architect, succeeded and moved on to the second generation. We expect the universal bank to make an enormous contribution and to make up any loss of funds that may emerge from the move to ACT.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters yesterday gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? During the session, it changed it tack from being one of the most scathing critics of the post-Horizon situation to being satisfied, encouraged and excited by the prospect of the implementation of the PIU report. Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many of his hon. Friends on the fact that postmasters and postmistresses are now with us in trying to improve the service to all our people?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of the ideas in the PIU report emerged from sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses themselves. The NFSP has always taken a constructive approach to this issue. It warmly welcomed the report when it was


published, as the post office-based universal bank solution that I described was one of its major desires. The Post Office Users National Council, which represents the consumer, said:
This report will put an end to the uncertainty that has been facing many subpostmasters.
The Women's Institute and the Village Retail Service Association also warmly welcomed the report, and there was a warm welcome from anyone with an interest in the Post Office and a commitment to its future. Unfortunately, that did not include the Conservative party.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. Christopher Gill: What assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing competitiveness of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [128941]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The climate change levy has been designed with the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing industry in mind. The impact of the levy will depend on the extent to which individual businesses take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. The Government have offered to energy intensive users a commitment to reduce the levy in return for some sign from them that they are determined to meet challenging environmental targets.

Mr. Gill: Who does the Minister think she is fooling when she says that a tax will not destroy the competitive position of British industry? It is a poll tax on jobs in manufacturing industry and she knows it. If she does not believe me, will she take some notice of the chief executive of Invest.UK, who has said openly that the climate change levy is resented by industry? Will she also take note of what the chairman of Phillips UK said when he described the CCL as this Government's most crass mistake?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is helpful in referring to Invest.UK. He will, of course, be aware that 52,000 extra jobs have come into this country as a result of the success of this Government in attracting inward investment. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question, as I answered it on 11 May when he asked it then. He should be well aware that the Government have introduced the CCL as a means of enabling industry to move towards more efficient energy usage to enable us to meet our environmental targets. The previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, were also committed to meeting international environmental targets. Was that yet another guarantee that has passed its sell-by date?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that some concerns still exist among high energy using industries? However, is not it a fact that during the past 18 months discussions have taken place with the Government, who have responded positively to try to make the CCL work for the benefit of industry? That attitude will be continued by a Government who,

unlike the previous one, are fully committed to the manufacturing sector and recognise its importance to the British economy.

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The Government have consulted with intensive energy users which are not currently covered by the legislation with a view to seeking to address their needs. An announcement will be made shortly. One of the key elements of our commitment to more efficient energy usage is about increasing the competitiveness of British industry. In the long term, industries throughout the world will have to be much more energy efficient. In this country, we are determined to do something about that. Eight other European countries have introduced similar measures. The CCL is revenue neutral and has to be matched with other measures aimed at helping other companies achieve greater energy efficiency, thereby reducing their costs and increasing the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will large-scale hydro-electric schemes be exempt from the levy? If not, is not there a danger that they will not be refurbished when the current equipment becomes life expired?

Mrs. Liddell: Within the past couple of months I have met with Scottish and Southern Energy—to which I assume the hon. Gentleman refers, because it is significant in his constituency. I understand that the company has made recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which will be considered in due course.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is it not strangely perverse that the Government bend over backwards on the levy to help companies such as Corus, which then announces thousands of redundancies?

Mrs. Liddell: I recognise the concerns that many right hon. and hon. Members have about the possibility of an announcement from Corus—and, as I represent a constituency close to the steelworks in Scotland, I share that anxiety. The Government will do everything they can to be of assistance to Corus and, in particular, to the work force should such redundancies come about. We are committed to manufacturing industry and have gone to considerable lengths to reduce corporation tax levies and to introduce assistance for innovation so that our companies can be as competitive as possible. Therefore, I recognise the disappointment that my hon. Friends and others feel when redundancies are announced by companies.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Before I ask my question, may I say that it is not a discourtesy to the House that my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) are not in their places? Both have recently undergone hospital treatment. I am pleased to report that both are making good recoveries.
On the question of manufacturing industry and the Minister's response, is not that all academic if manufacturing such as shipbuilding is facing unfair competition from illegal subsidies in other European


Union countries? What has the right hon. Lady done to stop those subsidies, or is this just another example of the emptiness of the Government's claim to be ever so influential in Europe? Is it not the truth that she has failed to tackle European shipbuilding subsidies, just as she has failed to tackle European coal industry subsidies? Both those failures are causing enormous damage to major British manufacturing industries.

Mrs. Liddell: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will pass on to his hon. Friends the good wishes of Labour Members for their speedy recovery.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman's substantive point is about shipbuilding subsidies, when the Conservative Government patently failed even to engage in such matters in the European Union. We have extended the shipbuilding intervention fund. My right hon. Friend is meeting shipbuilding interests today, and two weeks ago I met Ministers in Germany and France specifically to discuss these matters. In the EU, considerable action is already being taken against Korea, which is one of the major sources of difficulty for the shipbuilding industry.
It is rich for Conservative Members to raise these issues when they patently failed to engage in them when in government. They were intent on operating in Europe from the sidelines rather than having real influence. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to learn his homework more accurately before coming to the House.

Post Offices

Mr. Geraint Davies: What support he will give to post offices to provide banking facilities with particular reference to locations where other banking facilities have been withdrawn. [128942]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government strongly support the work being undertaken by the Post Office and the high street banks to develop a universal bank, which it is intended should cater for as wide a range of customers as possible and who would have access to their accounts at post offices. It will bring those people currently without bank accounts into the financial mainstream. The universal bank will complement the existing arrangements whereby post offices provide banking services on an agency basis for customers of several banks. The Horizon automation platform offers the potential to extend these arrangements more widely.

Mr. Davies: The news of the universal bank will be warmly and widely welcomed throughout Croydon, especially in New Addington and Fieldway, which have seen the steady withdrawal of banking facilities, not least from Barclays and Woolwich. The welcome arrival of new services in the post office at New Addington will be much greeted. When might we expect to see the arrival of new online services through universal bank in Croydon and elsewhere?

Mr. Johnson: I am pleased that Croydon has joined the list of places that is welcoming the PIU report. The PIU asked the Post Office to work up a business plan to be submitted to the Government by September. It is hoped

that online facilities will be available shortly after the entire network is computerised, which is an essential pre-condition, in the spring of 2001.

Mr. David Ruffley: How much revenue will a typical rural sub-post office receive on average per year as a result of banking transactions?

Mr. Johnson: The PIU report identifies enormous opportunities for the rural network as well.

Mr. Ruffley: How much?

Mr. Johnson: It does not quantify amounts. The important point is that we are dealing with several ideas to give work back to rural post offices, which have been losing work continuously over the past 20 years. In addition, we have said that we shall ring fence 10,000 rural post offices and ensure that there are no preventable closures—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members have any suggestions that the PIU has not considered and analysed, they have not forwarded them to the Government.

Mr. David Drew: We warmly welcome the PIU report and the Government's commitment to fund it—unlike Tory guarantees. Does my hon. Friend accept that the only way in which we can take matters forward is by fully exploiting the Horizon software? I am sure that the people of Stroud will welcome the opportunity to take part in a pilot project.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is right; the computerisation project is essential. We have reached the stage where 9,050 post offices are online. That is a tremendous achievement. The score stands as follows: number of post offices computerised by the Opposition, nil; number of post offices computerised by the Government, 9,050.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Where will the banking and administrative costs of running the universal bank fall? Will it be on account holders, on the associated clearing banks, on the Post Office or on the taxpayer?

Mr. Johnson: Those are matters for commercial negotiation between the Post Office and the high street banks. We have identified a solution to three problems. First, the problem of financial exclusion, which is a cause and effect of social exclusion. Secondly, we have identified a way in which people can access the full range of their bank accounts across a post office counter, and computerisation is essential to that. Thirdly, we have provided the means by which people can access their benefits and pensions in cash across a post office counter without bank charges, if they so wish.
Incidentally, we have removed the constant tension that has existed since the previous Government introduced automated credit transfer in 1980—the post office network and Benefits Agency were in constant tension about the whole issue. Now, sub-postmasters can market the universal bank idea and encourage people who do not currently draw their pensions and benefits in cash to do so, so it is an enormous development.

Mrs. Browning: The Minister must know that there is no such thing as free banking. This is about the fifth time that we have asked for that information. I am quite happy to wait while he phones a friend or asks the audience, but we want specific answers. Regardless of the point-of-use costs, the Prime Minister has promised account holders that the costs will not fall on them and the Minister seemed to indicate in his answer that they will not fall on the taxpayer. The Post Office has asked me, "Where do we send the invoice?" Can we deduce that the clearing banks have agreed to pick up the tab to give free banking to 3.5 million account holders?

Mr. Johnson: If I were going to phone a friend on the issue, it would not be anyone on the Conservative Benches

Mrs. Browning: The Minister has no friends.

Mr. Johnson: Little does the hon. Lady know.
The hon. Lady knows that we cannot give precise answers to questions that involve a commercial negotiation. PAT 14, working closely with colleagues in the Treasury, identified a social and financial obligation on the banks to produce systems to bring the financially excluded into the banking system. We are sending a clear message: the universal bank is the way to do that. The Prime Minister has announced that financial support will be available, but we obviously want the Post Office to continue its fruitful negotiations to bring the matter to a conclusion and to present a business plan by 1 September. Obviously, we can debate all those issues of detail, but it is a shame that Conservative Members—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who knows a thing or two about the situation and welcomed the statement—cannot bring themselves to recognise that the PIU report is the most comprehensive, thorough review of the network ever made. As was said when the statement was made, it is a shame that the review was not carried out 20 years ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when I was discussing the new bank with members of the WI—before we burst out singing "Jerusalem" from the beginning right to the very end—one of them happened to say to me, "Whatever happens to that bank, Dennis, don't put Norman Lamont in charge"?

Mr. Johnson: I am aware that my hon. Friend is a secret member of the Women's Institute—I do not know how he sneaked in. I also know that the Women's Institute comprises an extremely intelligent bunch of people. Therefore, that remark does not surprise me at all.

Post Office

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What recent representations he has received regarding the future of the Post Office. [128943]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have received a number of representations, including from the Post Office, which said that, at long last, it was to be given the commercial freedoms necessary for a world-class company; and also

from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which welcomed the Government's recent statements on the post office network.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not mention that I, too, have sent him representations, including a petition from the Women's Institute in Onslow village, and the Women's Institute in Bramley village, castigating the way in which the Government have bungled the whole issue. As the Minister for Competitiveness failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), perhaps the Secretary of State can have a go at it. Commercial banks are profit-making institutions, whereas the universal bank will be a loss-making institution. In the negotiations between the Post Office and the commercial banks, who will be making the profits, and who will be making the losses?

Mr. Byers: For the record, I give the House the response that came from the Women's Institute after our statement had been made to the House. The petitions that were gathered by the Women's Institute were conducted before we made the statement in response to the PIU report. In response to our statement, the Women's Institute said that it congratulated the Government on commissioning the PIU report and on not only agreeing to implement its recommendations in full, but promising to back that up with funding. We shall do that.

Mr. Peter Lilley: How much?

Mr. Byers: Next Tuesday, when we have the spending review, the right hon. Gentleman will know how much we are committing to the post office network. That commitment will stand in stark contrast to Conservative Members' new commitment to cut £16 billion from the amounts that we shall be announcing next week. Their promise would not only entail public service cuts of £24 million for every constituency in the country, but means that they would not be able to deliver the funding that the post office network needs and that we are prepared to commit to it.

Charlotte Atkins: Will the profits from that enterprise go to rural areas such as Werrington and Ipstones in my constituency, which have never before enjoyed those types of facilities and services?

Mr. Byers: The renaissance that we are offering the post office network will enable many of those communities to have services and to expand services. The PIU report identified some very important services that post offices will be able to provide as a result of the extra resources that are being made available. Our approach stands in stark contrast to that adopted by the previous Government, who neglected the rural network of post offices. We are giving a clear commitment to 10,000 post offices. We have extended the definition of a rural community to ensure that there will be no avoidable closures of those post offices.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is it not the case that the Post Office is in considerable financial


difficulty—not only because of the £570-million hit on the Horizon project, but because of the loss of £450 million annually in automated credit transfer income; the loss of £100 million in bond income; the £900 million, I believe, hole in the pension fund; and, now, the threat from the European Union directive to 15 per cent. of its sales? Against that background, how will the Post Office be able to maintain its universal service obligation and its obligation to the network while not increasing charges or abandoning the second-class post?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will know that when we have the Postal Services Bill on the statute book, greater commercial freedom will be given to the Post Office to address those concerns. Our position has been quite different from that of Conservative Members, who basically had two approaches to the Post Office—to privatise it or to use it in the public sector to subsidise the Treasury. That was the reality of the previous Conservative Government's approach to the Post Office.
Our approach is different: to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that it needs. We are reducing the dividend paid to the Treasury, which means an extra £100 million to £150 million a year in extra income to the Post Office. We are putting £500 million into the Horizon project and next Tuesday we will announce a sum of money to support the post office network. All those steps will ensure that the Post Office and the network have a strong and vibrant future.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend know that the Minister for Competitiveness visited some nine post offices in my constituency, meeting some 12 postmasters and postmistresses, and was very well received? One of those post offices was at Llanfynydd, a small, isolated village at 800 ft. Does he think that Llanfynydd post office will be ring-fenced and have a good future under his proposals?

Mr. Byers: If I could pronounce it, I am sure that it could—[Interruption.] My mother is Welsh, so I have to be very careful about these matters. I am sure that even at 800 ft that post office will have a strong and vibrant future because of the measures that we are introducing through the PIU report and also because of the strong advocacy from my right hon. Friend if there were any threat to the future of that particular post office.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain this to me please? Section 7.5 of the Government's document, "The Counter Revolution", which deals with financial services, says that the new banking system could not raise more than a maximum of £50 million. Where will the other £350 million come from to sustain the rural post office network?

Mr. Byers: That was in the PIU report that the Government accepted. The Post Office projected something like £150 million from the universal bank. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is not the only source of additional funding that the PIU report identified. There is a total package of measures to do with internet access, Government general practitioner services, support for urban post offices in deprived areas and support for the rural network. We are introducing a

raft of measures to which the Conservative Government, who were in office for 18 years, did not give a thought. That shows that the people in rural communities have a clear choice for the post office network: decline, neglect and closures under the Tories or vision, commitment and a future under Labour.

Small Businesses (Chorley)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on his Department's support for small businesses in Chorley. [128944]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The national network of 81 business links is being replaced by 45 new business links. The existing partnership in north and west Lancashire, which serves Chorley, was successful in the first stage of assessment for the new network. The partnership has been invited to submit a business plan for the services it will deliver from April next year.

Mr. Hoyle: Although my hon. Friend's comments about the success of business link are very welcome, following Lord Haskins' report about the burden of red tape that is strangling small business, what can be done to reduce that red tape? We should also remember that Chorley is not an assisted area. Small businesses are doing well, and removing the red tape would give them an extra boost.

Ms Hewitt: The better regulation taskforce published an excellent report earlier this year, and I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that in our response last month, with just one exception, we accepted all the taskforce's recommendations and are now putting them into practice. I would also stress that services and support are available to small businesses in Chorley and across the country, including the small firms loan guarantee scheme and technology grants such as Smart. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the assistance that those programmes have given businesses in his constituency.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is it on Chorley?

Mr. Fabricant: Yes, Madam Speaker. The Minister will be aware that Chorley is a veritable mecca for restaurants and hotels, which are often frequented by their Member of Parliament. Has she read the report of the better regulation taskforce which says that parental leave and the working time directive are crippling such small businesses? When will she do something about it?

Ms Hewitt: I note that since we were elected, there has been a substantial increase in employment not only in Chorley but in the hon. Gentleman's constituency too, and right across the country. The excellent report from the taskforce is being studied so that we can come forward with a practical response to its recommendations. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether he is proposing that small hotels and bed-and-breakfast establishments should be exempted from employment


laws, and from fire and hygiene safety regulations. Does he not care about how small firms treat their customers and workers?

Energy Market

Mr. Michael Clapham: What steps he is taking to liberalise the energy market. [128945]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Since the election, the Government have been committed to the liberalisation of energy markets. As my hon. Friend will know, the Utilities Bill is continuing its progress through the House. Once it receives Royal Assent, it will bring into play new electricity trading arrangements.

Mr. Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to liberalising energy in this country is the new electricity trading arrangements, which will bring benefits to consumers? In that context, does she also agree that the coal industry contributes to the energy mix, and may need further protection in the post-Kyoto period? Will she look at ways in which more investment can be made in clean coal technology? Will she also ensure that the negotiations on the interconnector bring about a reciprocal flow of electricity, so that we can connect this country's electricity grid with the European energy market?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend raises three very important points. New electricity trading arrangements are being introduced because the previous Government's policy of haphazard privatisation of the energy industry, together with their failure to get to grips with the abnormalities in the operation of the electricity pool, put the coal industry at a disadvantage. The new arrangements will make for a much more transparent market. They will also mean lower electricity prices, which will benefit domestic and commercial consumers. Assuming that the Utilities Bill will gain Royal Assent, we are on target to have the electricity trading arrangements in place next winter.
My hon. Friend asked about cleaner coal technology. That is an important matter. To secure the future of the coal industry, we must make sure we have coal that is environmentally friendly. That is why, in April 1999, we commenced a six-year programme of development and research into cleaner coal technology. We expect an initial Government expenditure in the region of £12 million to generate an additional £60 million of private investment in the development of cleaner coal technology.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked an important question about access to the interconnector. Yesterday, I met Mr. Rousseli of Electricité de France, and I raised with him our anxiety about access to the interconnector. I have also raised the matter with the French Government. Rules for access to the interconnector come up for renegotiation in March 2001. It is imperative that we have clear, transparent and good-cost access to the interconnector. I believe that that point has been well made, and it was

backed up when the Heads of Government at the Lisbon summit advanced further proposals for the liberalisation of European energy markets.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the best way to liberalise and rationalise the electricity market is to follow the Scandinavian example? Is she aware of the recommendations by the royal commission on environmental pollution that the Scandinavian model should be adopted in this country, that overhead pylons and cooling towers should be done away with, and that we should revert to sourcing electricity as close as possible to demand?

Mrs. Liddell: I am well aware of the campaign that the hon. Lady has pursued on behalf of her constituents on that matter, and we have corresponded a number of times. I appreciate the anxiety of constituents worried about pylons and cooling towers, but costs must be taken into account by the relevant planning authorities in any planning consideration. I know that the hon. Lady will continue to pursue this matter.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Scandinavian model. I believe that we must have a model for energy distribution that suits this country's needs, but I am not unmindful of the anxieties of communities about energy lines despoiling their environment and its beauty.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What assessment he has made of the impact on industrial relations of those provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 which came into force in June. [128946]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): No assessment has been made to date; it was only on 6 June that the provisions went on to the statute book. We are confident that they will help to improve industrial relations by creating a fair, workable procedure for resolving disputes about recognition, while at its core encouraging the voluntary settlement of contested issues at every stage.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Sadly, Thomson Marconi Sona has announced the closure of its plant in the Medway towns. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union has secured more than 50 per cent. membership at that place of work, and at long last the management is suggesting that it will now recognise that trade union. Does my right hon. Friend welcome that? Is it not right that those in the work force there will get some security and comfort from the fact that they will be represented by their union? Is it not also true that if we adopted the policies of the Conservative party we would return our country to a "hire today, fire tomorrow" mentality? It is right that we should have partnership in the workplace, and that where more than 50 per cent. of the work force want to join a union, it should be recognised.

Mr. Caborn: It is always unfortunate when redundancies are announced, but obviously in an ever changing world we must manage change in the most effective way. What my hon. Friend has said underlines the need to put the voluntary aspect at the core of the legislation. In the case that he highlighted a voluntary


agreement has been arrived at. But if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, as we hope it will be, the statute is there to fall back on.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Last year the number of ballots for industrial action rose from 464 to 983, and the number of stoppages increased by 23 per cent. Given that the Government have now put statutory trade union recognition on the statute book, does the Minister anticipate that those figures will increase or decrease next year?

Mr. Caborn: When we put all those figures together, we see that the number of days lost in British industry was the second lowest on record. That is a very good record.

Mrs. Browning: We now see unions flexing their muscles, and recognise that the Government are more interested in their legislation in favour of unions than in the action that is taking place, such as that involving Royal Mail in north London. In reply to a written question that I asked only last week, the Secretary of State said that that action, which is disrupting a great deal of business post, was nothing to do with him. Is not the only hope for business the fact that the next election will result in the return of a Conservative Government, who will revoke statutory trade union recognition?

Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that we would then return to the confrontational politics of industrial relations that used to be quite evident. I repeat that the number of days lost was the second lowest on record. With regard to my earlier answer about voluntary trade union recognition, there were 75 such recognitions in the 10 months to the end of October 1999, compared with 34 in 1998. The genuine partnership in industry is now working. The framework of industrial relations that we have put on the statute book is creating a climate of co-operation and making sure that we can have the most productive work force in a very competitive world. I believe that we have just about got it right.

Knowledge-based Economy

Ms Margaret Moran: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the benefits of the knowledge-based economy are accessible to people in all socio-economic groups. [128947]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We are taking action in a number of areas to ensure that everyone can benefit from the internet and new technologies, and more generally from an economy based on skills and knowledge.

Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to ensuring that the new technologies are available to all. But is he aware that in parts of my constituency young Asian males and females are four times more likely to be unemployed than their white counterparts? That is why I am working with business and the voluntary sector in a project to encourage the take-up of new technologies for skills and job opportunities. What incentives can my right hon. Friend offer such projects?

What incentives will be available to ensure that the most socially excluded can engage in businesses in the new economy and the opportunities that it offers?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The survey produced just two days ago by the Office of National Statistics showed clearly that there was a danger of a digital divide developing in the United Kingdom—a geographical divide between north and south, as well as a divide based on ethnic background. I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing with young black and Asian people in her constituency. There is clearly a responsibility for Government to reflect on that as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has commissioned some work in this area to make sure that people from different ethnic backgrounds do not lose out in terms of the new technologies.
There is a very important lesson here for all of us. The new technologies have the potential to bring great opportunity, but also to introduce greater divisions in our society. It is the job of an active Government to ensure that wherever we come from, whatever our background, we all benefit from the new technologies.

Mr. James Gray: How can the Secretary of State stand there and pay glib lip service to supporting high-tech industries when the Government are bringing in IR35, which will drive entrepreneurs offshore tomorrow? The CBI, the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses and others agree that this is a disaster for entrepreneurial business in the sector. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman knows, IR35 was introduced because service companies were being exploited in a way that meant that some people were not paying their fair share of tax and national insurance. Entrepreneurs who are prepared to make their contribution to the United Kingdom have nothing to fear from IR35.
We hear stories from Conservative Members about people walking away from the United Kingdom; it would be interesting to see some figures to support those accusations. [Interruption.] I look forward to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) providing me with details and names, because so far no Conservative Member has been able to do so.

Small Business Service

Mr. David Kidney: What plans he has to promote the work of the Small Business Service. [128948]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): David Irwin, chief executive of the new Small Business Service, is looking at how we can promote our services to our small business customers even more effectively.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she accept that the creation of the Small Business Service marks a step change in our country's appreciation of the significant contribution that small businesses make to the success of our economy? Does she agree that it is important that all the people who might benefit from the


work of the service should know that it exists, and that it is there to help? Will she say something about the marketing that she intends to carry out to ensure that there is maximum awareness among the people who could benefit from the service?

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are determined to ensure that locally, small businesses and people wanting to start small businesses are aware of what their local business links can offer, and nationally, that they are aware of the programmes and support for which the Small Business Service is responsible. We will be using every possible avenue—including, of course, the internet—to make sure that that message gets across.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the Minister agree that the Small Business Service should be taking account of the European small business charter? The charter has some excellent aspirations for small business which, if implemented, would be extremely beneficial to the sector. Will the Minister indicate when the Government will start implementing these measures?

Ms Hewitt: We were, of course, responsible for promoting the idea of the small business charter, and we were delighted when the proposals were accepted at the Lisbon summit. We are now working with the European Commission and with our European colleagues to make sure that the proposals come into effect.
Let me stress the fact that not only are there 1 million more people in work than when we were elected, but 1 million new businesses have started up since then. It is not surprising that the Economist intelligence Unit recently concluded that the United Kingdom is one of the best places in the world to do business, and we intend to keep it that way.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend say how the Small Business Service will support co-operative and community businesses? How will it work with universities in supporting spin-out technologies into small companies? Can she give me an assurance that she will do all she can to ensure that the north-west has a strong scientific base? Can she also assure me that adequate support will be given to the recommendations of the working party now considering scientific developments based on the work of universities and research institutions in the north-west, including work done at Liverpool and Manchester universities, following the very regrettable decision about Daresbury?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes several important points. We have asked the Small Business Service and business links specifically to support business start-ups in disadvantaged areas. Over the next three years, we are putting £30 million into the Phoenix fund to help support that initiative. We have already created and funded 12 enterprise centres in universities throughout the country to help to ensure that science-based ideas are commercialised. I know that my hon. Friend and vice-chancellors of universities in the north-west will warmly welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of an additional £1 billion investment in the science base in our universities.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Lady not understand that for the hotel and restaurant sector, none of the initiatives of the Small Business Service remotely compensates for the fact that the regulatory burden for that sector consists of no fewer than 70 booklets and 1,500 pages?

Ms Hewitt: The recent report of the better regulation taskforce on the hotel and catering sector is excellent. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, we are considering carefully how we can implement its recommendations. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large part of the over-complex regulations that are undoubtedly burdening the hotel sector is a leftover from the time of the previous Government? We are putting effective measures in place to simplify business support. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say whether he will exempt small hotels and bed-and-breakfast places from the hygiene and safety regulations that are essential for the safety of customers and workers alike.

Post Offices

Mr. Brian Jenkins: If he will make a statement on his plans for maintaining access to post offices. [128949]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In his statement to the House on 28 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a range of measures to underpin the Government's commitment to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. Those measures include a formal requirement for the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures. This requirement will cover all post offices in settlements of fewer than 10,000 people, and will thus apply to nearly 10,000 post offices. In urban areas, we shall encourage improvements in the quality of post offices and associated retail businesses that also maintain convenient access, with particular emphasis on deprived areas. Furthermore, we have made it clear that financial assistance will be available to support those measures as necessary.

Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is unaware that access to the main post office in Tamworth is by a ramp or three sets of steps—that matter is outside his remit.
Although we welcome the universal bank, what will it do for customers for whom a bank account is wholly inappropriate? What can the Department do about that?

Mr. Johnson: The whole point of the universal bank is to pick up on the PAT 14 report on financial exclusion, which found that people who are outside mainstream banking services lose out as a result. The idea is to ensure that people who may have a certain distrust of banks, but who—as has been found time and again—by and large trust the Post Office, can use their access to post offices to give them the advantages of a bank account. That is especially true for those who draw benefits, and it is an


important development. It is high time that we did something to tackle the enormous problem of financial exclusion in this country.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Nobody will have access to rural post offices if the income stream is not assured. Will the Minister give us an answer on our third try today? The sum of £400 million has been lost to sub-postmasters through the introduction of automated credit transfer. The Government's document states that the universal bank and other banking schemes might bring in £50 million. In answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the Secretary of State raised that figure—off the cuff—to £150 million, without giving any reason. He mentioned various small things like the internet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Small?"] Yes. Who will fill that gaping black hole of £400 million in the finances of sub-postmasters? We want no waffle about Women's Institutes or commercial incompetence; give us the facts now.

Mr. Johnson: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a degree in waffling. I remember full well that his solution to the problem was to privatise the whole Post Office lock, stock and barrel.
Let me explain the position to the hon. Gentleman. The loss of £400 million of income would occur only if no one ever went into a post office again to draw pensions and benefits across a post office counter. As everyone with an interest in the issue realises, the status quo is not an option. People are volunteering to go over to ACT at the rate of 500,000 a year, and that trend will increase as a whole new generation, who are used to cashless pay, come up to retirement. The win, win, win solution is the idea of a universal bank that will ensure that people who want to draw their pensions and benefits across a post office counter will still be able to do so.
The hon. Gentleman made a fairly disparaging reference to the internet. One of the major reasons why we have such a ubiquitous post office network in this country is that the Post Office was in at the birth of the telegraph service in 1871. The whole system was established around what was then stunning new technology. It is appropriate that we put the Post Office in the same position now, so that it can be in at the ground floor of e-commerce, which opens up the whole range of opportunities that the performance and innovation unit report rightly identified.

Mr. Andrew Miller: It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to complain about the Post Office, particularly following the representations that I made to the previous Administration about the problems faced by Little Neston and Mickle Trafford, two rural post offices in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that it is especially important for such businesses to increase the footfall in their shops and premises. Will he have words with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions to ensure that information services from local government can be made available in local post offices? That would increase their overall business potential.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It was raised with us by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which identified the fact that sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses and their staff currently provide a free, largely unrecognised—except by the communities that they serve—and certainly unrewarded service in distributing government information. The idea of making them government "general practitioners", properly trained and rewarded to provide government information, is one of the report's important recommendations. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been given the job of taking that recommendation forward.

Energy Policy

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's energy policy on commercial competitiveness. [128950]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's policy of promoting and developing competition in energy markets has led to significant reductions in industrial gas and electricity prices. Average industrial energy prices in 1999 were at their lowest since 1970 in real terms. This is a huge competitive advantage for British industry. Indeed, electricity prices have gone down even further this year in anticipation of the new electricity trading arrangements that we discussed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).

Mr. Paterson: In total contrast to what the Minister has just said, a major UK haulier told me recently that, thanks to the Government's energy taxation policy, he would be £1.4 million a year better off if he moved all his 75 trucks to Luxembourg. The Government's energy policy is making every business in this country less competitive. If I am wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] If I am wrong, can the Minister, for the first time this Question Time, answer a very simple question? Can she name three businesses that are more competitive under this Government's energy taxation policy?

Mrs. Liddell: It is not often that the hon. Gentleman is right, and he is wrong again. He seems to have forgotten who introduced the fuel duty escalator. That was a direct consequence of the action taken by the previous Government. The Government have listened to the representations from industry. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like facts, but the fact is that we have reduced industrial gas and electricity prices, helping every intensive energy user in the country. Much combined heat and power activity imports energy for its schemes; that comes directly from reduced gas and electricity prices. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the views of industry, he should go and talk to those involved about the benefits that have resulted from the Government's energy policy.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 17 JULY—Remaining stages of the Football (Disorder) Bill, which will be taken on a timetable motion unless it is clear from today's debate that there is from the Opposition the full co-operation that they claimed to be offering a few days ago.
TUESDAY 18 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 20 JULY—Debate on Public Expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
FRIDAY 21 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 24 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JULY—Motion on the Summer Recess Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall for the remainder of July will be:
THURSDAY 20 JULY—Debate on the Fourth Report from the Agriculture Committee on Environmental Regulation and Farming.
THURSDAY 27 JULY—Debate on Crime Reduction Partnerships.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for next week's business and an indication of some of the business for the following week. Can she throw some light on statements that the Government will be making next week? Can she confirm that the Chancellor will be making an announcement about the comprehensive spending review on Tuesday? Will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the NHS on a later date? Will the Deputy Prime Minister be making a statement on transport next week? In the spirit of the debate that is to take place later today, might the Government share that information with the House?
There appear to be a few blank days in the week after next. The House is still owed a debate on procurement for the armed forces which would otherwise run into the traditional two-day debate in October. Could we have that debate before we rise?
The Leader of the House has announced consideration of Lords amendments. She may have noticed that in the other place—where neither party has an in-built majority—the Government are regularly defeated.

Can she confirm that she welcomes this revising role of the second Chamber and that the Government will not automatically use their majority here to overturn sensible Lords amendments?
Finally, further to a question that I asked a fortnight ago, is the Leader of the House any clearer on the likely date of the state opening of Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: I can confirm that I anticipate that the comprehensive spending review will be announced in a statement to the House on Tuesday. The issue of what other statements might follow that is under consideration and we will convey that information as matters become clearer.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the provisional business included what appeared to be some blank days and suggested a debate on defence procurement. He went on to discuss the fact that there are regular Government defeats in the House of Lords. As he will know, and as the figures make clear, these are far more regular than under previous Governments. This Government have been defeated 38 times in the House of Lords in this Parliament, whereas the previous Government were defeated only 19 times in 1992–93, only 17 times in 1987–88 and only 20 times in 1983–84. I know that Opposition Members nurture the illusion that that is evidence of the independence of their Lordships. We think that it is evidence of their bias. On the issue of the state opening, I fear that I have nothing to tell the right hon. Gentleman at the moment.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the steel industry in the light of the report published this week by the UK Steel Association and the Engineering Employers Federation, which called for a re-balancing of the economy to support manufacturing? Such a debate should make special reference to the job lay-offs being announced by Corns at a time when the pound is weakening against the dollar and the euro, the company is moving into the black and, according to all analysts, will make a profit of £750 million next year. This is not the time for Corus to cut a swathe through jobs in the industrial heartlands.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern which, I believe, is shared across the House. At a time when there is so much creation of new employment, jobs are still being lost in manufacturing. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at that, whether those jobs are lost in the steel industry or elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right to use this opportunity to raise the issue of whether Corns should reconsider its plans in the light of recent economic developments, but I fear that I cannot offer time for a special debate.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that, in last week's business questions, I drew her attention to the extremely unfortunate precedent of the speedy dispatch of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and related that to the dangerous yobs Bill that is now before the House? Will the Leader of the House look at the timetable for Monday's debate? First, will she give an assurance that there will be adequate time for all the major issues which, as Members on both sides of the House recognise, raise important matters of principle? 


Secondly, will she look at the controversial parts of the Bill, which relate to the third proposition on banning orders and the fourth proposition on the revival of the sus laws that we got rid of some years ago—at least, we thought that we had?
Thirdly, and most importantly, will the Leader of the House examine the case for a proper interval between the Bill's Committee stage and its Report and Third Reading? Otherwise, there will be no opportunity for the House and for those outside who have an interest in the matter, such as the police, to take account of Committee debates before we come to Report and Third Reading, which could perfectly well be taken on Wednesday, after 10 pm, if necessary. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the imperative for this legislation appears to be a club fixture in August, and that there is no great urgency for the measure at all?

Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he reminded me at the last business questions of unfortunate precedents on the speedy dispatch of legislation. However, he will know that under none of those precedents did we have the degree of scrutiny and the unprecedented degree of consultation and co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has demonstrated. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Bill's proposals are not all new, although I accept that some are more controversial than others. I accept, as I know that my right hon. Friend will, the hon. Gentleman's point about timetabling enough time to deal with the issues adequately. From what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government would be pleased if we could do that in a co-operative way. We are offering to do that, but only time will show whether that will turn out to be possible.
As for the notion that there are no relevant international matches, I understand that that is not the case. There is an important international match in early September, and there is some concern that, unless further measures are then in place, more problems could occur.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I urge my right hon. Friend to think seriously about the matter. Passing legislation because of a deadline set by a football match is not, on the whole, a sensible precedent. We are discussing a fundamental right, and I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously giving more time to the period between the introduction of the Bill and its Report stage. It is a question not just of dealing with football hooligans, but of putting on the statute book a precedent that will affect all United Kingdom citizens. I seriously ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the timing.

Mrs. Beckett: The Government have given a good deal of thought to the timing and consulted on the matter very fully, as my hon. Friend will know. Of course I take her point about these being major issues, but she will know that not only did we have substantial discussion on an earlier private Member's Bill, but there has been some nine months debate of the issues. I hope that she is also aware that recent events highlighted loopholes in existing legislation whose importance had not previously been appreciated, in that the measures on the statute book deal specifically with football-related offences and

convictions, and not with others that may be equally relevant. Of course I take my hon. Friend's observations on board, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? There has to be a great deal of concern that we are taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House on Monday, which does not give us time to reflect on what has been said on Second Reading or to receive representations from outside. Moreover, the fact that the Committee stage will not be taken Upstairs precludes the holding of a Special Standing Committee, which in this case would be extremely important in considering whether, for example, there is a breach of articles 5(1) and 14 of the European convention on human rights. There is the further anxiety that there is likely to be no gap between the Committee stage and Report stage.
Finally, is the right hon. Lady aware that even now we have not been given the final copy of the Bill? I went to the Vote Office, and the Clerk said—no doubt perfectly properly—that I could not get a copy until the Bill had been formally laid. We still do not have the completed version of a Bill that we are to debate in five hours.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little disingenuous, if I may say so. He knows perfectly well that the Bill has been under continued revision as a result, quite properly, of discussions in and across the House, and that we expect to have the present text available very shortly. He has expressed concern about the interval between discussion today and on Monday. I remind him that his first concern, expressed a week or so ago, was that not all the stages should be taken in one day. The Government have heeded that concern, and I hope that he will recognise that. All that I can say to him is that the Government will do their best to reach agreement on a matter that, I remind him, was urged on us by Conservative Members, who offered full co-operation in dealing with any legislative proposals.

Ms Joan Ryan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on employment? I ask that in light of yesterday's figures, which show that a million more people have found jobs since Labour was elected. That is despite a prediction by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), when he was Secretary of State for Employment, that a Labour Government would lose a million jobs. He had the right figure, but I am pleased to say that he was clearly going in the wrong direction, so nothing much has changed there.
This is a most important topic for all our constituents, and it would be useful to focus on the fact that, between 1979 and 1997, under successive Conservative Governments, unemployment doubled, while three years into a Labour Government, we have a million more jobs. Can my right hon. Friend find time for that important debate?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and relevant point, and it is certainly noteworthy that, after three years of a Labour Government, we have managed to return employment to the level that it was at when we


last left office, after which Conservative Governments so substantially increased unemployment. However, I fear that, although my hon. Friend makes an important point, I cannot find time for an extra debate on that at present.

Mr. John Redwood: As we are about to see a documentary on the out-of-control spin machine at No. 10 Downing street, will the right hon. Lady ensure that there is an early opportunity after its screening for us to cross-examine a Minister on the work of Mr. Alastair Campbell? It seems to us that the wages of spin are very high for him but a lousy deal for the rest of us.

Mrs. Beckett: I am so bored with hearing the Conservatives rattle on about spin, image and presentation. I cannot be the only Member who remembers photographs of Lady Thatcher sitting in a field, holding a calf. They should not lecture us about image.

Mr. David Taylor: The Edinburgh CJD surveillance unit has announced that, in a nation of 60 million people, there have been 74 confirmed and probable cases of human variant CJD, of which five have occurred in Leicestershire, which has a population of fewer than 1 million. Statistically, it is highly unlikely that that has occurred by chance. Will the Leader of the House press her colleagues to find time for a parliamentary debate on that very worrying occurrence or at least to use the research and information that may exist in Leicestershire to aid national understanding of this distressing disease?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I understand the concern that he expressed, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor in the near future. He might see whether there is an opportunity in Westminster Hall, and it may be tabling for Health questions today. I am confident that he will use other opportunities to raise the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I return to the Football (Disorder) Bill—a matter that has been raised from both sides of the House by hon. Members with considerable service in, and experience of, the House? Was I right to deduce from what the Leader of the House said that, following the debate today, a decision will be taken on whether the business of the House on Monday will he subject to a guillotine motion? If that is the case, is the right hon. Lady aware that hon. Members are getting a pretty heavy postbag on the Bill, some of it in favour and quite a lot of it against, particularly because of the rather draconian proposals contained in the Bill? Does she accept that, although the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor, the Report stage is often the only stage of a Bill when Back-Bench Members of Parliament have an opportunity of expressing the concerns of their constituents? If it is to be good legislation, is it not right that there should be a full and proper opportunity for all hon. Members who wish to participate to take part in such an important debate?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, and I take it seriously. Although of course I understand the concerns and reservations of hon.

Members when legislation is dealt with at speed—the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what I said is quite correct—the Government will, if it appears necessary, propose a timetable motion. When we began our exchanges—I do not mean the hon. Gentleman and I, but across the Dispatch Box—the Opposition offered co-operation for speedy legislative action. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted by The Northern Echo on 23 June as saying:
I hope the Government accepts our sincere offer of cooperation.
By 4 July, in this place, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
We cannot proceed on a rushed basis—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 173.]
with the Bill. Since then, Opposition Members from the Front Bench and beyond have repeatedly said that, if we are to proceed with the Bill, they demand that the Government drop some other piece of legislation. That is not what we consider full co-operation.

Mr. David Chaytor: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the agreement reached this week between British Nuclear Fuels and the Kansai electric company in Japan relating to the return of defective nuclear fuel from Japan, and including significant compensation payments. Does she agree that that has major implications for the potential future development of the plutonium trade between Britain and Japan, which could have serious economic and environmental consequences? Does she find it remarkable that there has not been one form of parliamentary scrutiny of the development of that trade? Does she agree that the recent publication by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of BNFL provides a perfect opportunity for such parliamentary scrutiny?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point about the implications for the plutonium trade and also about the Select Committee report. He will know that it is open to the Liaison Committee to nominate Select Committee reports for debate, whether on the estimates days or in Westminster Hall. He makes a powerful case for one of those nominations to be the report.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Lady realise that her failure to provide time to debate defence procurement is undermining the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Should not the House debate the National Audit Office major projects report on defence, which demonstrates that, far from undertaking smart procurement, the Ministry of Defence is overseeing a cost overrun of £2.75 billion on the 25 projects studied by the NAO, and furthermore, that 15 projects are more than three years late? Is it not the case that, far from smart procurement, the Government are conniving at the rip-off of the taxpayer?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman first makes a point about the defence procurement debate. I have repeatedly said that the Government will provide time for that debate, but we are not able to do so before the recess. It is not at all clear to me that there is any reason why that should hold up the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As for the notion that the National Audit Office major


projects report in some way casts doubt on the Government's approach to smart procurement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the report measures cumulative cost over-runs during the life of projects that, in some cases, extend for 20 years or more. It cannot have escaped his notice that that was not under this Government.

Mr. David Drew: Has my right hon. Friend cast her eyes over the parliamentary ombudsman report, which came out last week, entitled, "Investigation into delays into making payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme"—a riveting, good read? It refers to the previous Government's behaviour and their complete failure to reform the common agricultural policy, let alone manage it. Has that anything to do with why Conservatives dropped the debate on agriculture from today's Order Paper?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Indeed, he may well be right. I have struggled to identify the reason why Opposition Members, who so often—not least at this Question Time—make complaints and express concerns about the farming industry, agriculture and so on, chose to abandon the scheduled debate on the crisis in agriculture to discuss the riveting subject of the House of Commons itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members make noises, but clearly the crisis in agriculture has disappeared, or perhaps my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Christopher Chope: If the Leader of the House is determined to curtail debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill next week, will she give an assurance that the Government will not move any closure motion on this evening's debate so that everyone who wishes to speak is given full opportunity so to do? Can she confirm that her responsibilities should extend to protecting the interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House who do not necessarily agree with their respective Front Benchers on such issues?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I am aware that there are differences of view in the House, and I accept that it is important to have time. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been absolutely meticulous in offering opportunities for consultation and, indeed, making changes to the proposed legislation as a result of those consultations. That is exactly the kind of exchange that, in other circumstances, would have taken place on Second Reading or in Committee, so we have attempted to take account of different concerns. Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there will be different views in the House and that some hon. Members may disagree with those on their Front Bench. Equally, he must accept my point that, while recognising that legitimate right, the Government have to take account of that in deciding how and whether we can proceed.

Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that it is two years since agreement was reached in Rome on setting up the International Criminal Court. When does she intend to introduce legislation to ratify that treaty to

fulfil the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we would be among the first 60 nations to do so?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that that proposal did not find a place in this year's programme. He will also know that I cannot speculate about the contents of future Queen's Speeches. The Government recognise the importance of the issue, but there are many other important issues.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I have applied several times for Adjournment debates on tourism in the south-west. With the summer season upon us, tourists are fortunately flocking to the area, but there is a need to debate the Government's performance on tourism, given all the working parties and groups that they have set up and the recommendations that they have made, which have not yet been implemented. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on tourism and its effects on the south-west economy?

Mrs. Beckett: While I wish the tourism industry in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world well, I fear that time is under a considerable premium at this time of year. I understand his concern in seeking time for such a debate. He will know that the Government have provided extra time for Adjournment debates. I fear that I cannot undertake to find specific time for such a debate at the moment.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time to debate the plight of my constituents in the village of Croston who have been besieged by 100 travellers? Not only has crime increased throughout the village, but private land is being destroyed and waste and disease may follow given the insanitary conditions there. The problem exists throughout the United Kingdom; there is no constituency that has not suffered because of such travellers.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn of the concern and dismay expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents and sorry, too, to learn of the difficulties that have arisen in his locality. I am aware that consultation on whether new legislative proposals could be introduced is being undertaken, and he may want to contribute his experience to it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Can we have an early debate on this country's relations with Iran? Would that not give us the opportunity to consider the circumstances in which the London-based charity Iran Aid was forced to close? The Iranian regime said that they would not let the Foreign Secretary into Iran until that had happened. Would we not also be given the opportunity to understand why the Iranian regime, when they found out who the Foreign Secretary is, said that they were too busy to see him anyway? Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a debate would allow us to understand how this country's interests are advanced by the sight of the Foreign Secretary grovelling to the torturers of Tehran?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I can only confess to the hon. Gentleman my entire ignorance of the


circumstances of the Iran Aid case. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I see what has happened. While I was counting my worry beads, Opposition Members resumed their seats.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the Prime Minister is due to make a statement. Can someone run along to his office and bring him to the Chamber?

Mr. John Bercow: The Prime Minister has arrived.

Madam Speaker: I was just counting my worry beads. I call the Prime Minister.

Government Annual Report

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Thank you, Madam Speaker. With your permission, I would like to make a statement on the annual report published by the Government earlier today.
Our first and primary responsibility was to get the economic fundamentals right—the building blocks that will make Britain stronger and fairer. Inflation is at 2.2 per cent.—within our inflation target of 2.5 per cent.—and an inherited £28 billion deficit was turned into a £16 billion surplus by last year. Unemployment is down and 1 million jobs have been created since May 1997. Real take-home pay is up by about 8 per cent., and when spending on areas that we want to spend money on, such as children and pensions, is taken out, welfare spending is falling for the first time in decades. But none of that has come without serious, grown-up choices—Bank of England independence, taking the politics out of people's mortgages, and tough action to clear the deficit. I know that some of those decisions, such as the rises in fuel duty, were unpopular, but they were necessary.
Interest rates over the years of this Government have averaged 6 per cent. In the previous 18 years, they averaged 10 per cent. That change makes the average mortgage holder £160 a month better off. That stability has been fought for and is on course to being won. Now we must make the next choice: to invest in this country's future. I believe that the people of this country understand that Britain is a chronically underinvested nation. For 18 years, transport, health and education were starved of the funds that they needed. In education, for example, the real-terms increase during the 18 years of Conservative government was only 1.5 per cent. a year. If we want opportunity and security for all in a world of change, we now have to invest in our essential infrastructure and public services. This Government are committed to that investment.
There has been investment to repair and renovate 11,000 schools, with 6,000 more to come; more money for books; money for computers; money for paying teachers more; and thousands more schools linked to the internet. We have seen a dramatic rise in standards in primary schools, but the next challenge is to see the same big rises in standards in secondary education and universities. The priorities remain education, education, education, and our response will be investment, investment, investment. Guaranteed.
In the health service, we are meeting our target on in-patient waiting. We must now get sustained falls in out-patient waiting. By the end of this year, all accident and emergency departments that need to be rebuilt or refurbished will receive such treatment. The first new hospital has already opened in Carlisle, and 37 more infrastructure projects amounting to more than £25 million each are on their way in England alone. There are new services, such as NHS Direct and walk-in centres. As a result of the March Budget, the national health service is finally getting the funds that it needs. It has benefited from the biggest sustained increase in its history. Again, however, we know that there is much more to do.
The Jubilee line and the docklands light railway show what our transport system could be like. Moreover, there are additional train and bus services, and new rolling stock


is starting to come into use. But, in many parts of Britain, our transport infrastructure urgently needs substantial extra investment. We admit that. The 10-year transport plan, which will be published shortly, will show how it can be done.
The Government are committed to a society of opportunity for all and responsibility from all. Crime is down since 1997, particularly car crime and burglary—in some areas, spectacularly so. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We have all had our fun; the House must now settle down.

The Prime Minister: Violent crime, however, is rising. We need more police; we will get them. We need new ways in which to tackle drugs; we will get those too. We need tougher action against drug dealers; we are legislating against them.
In all those areas, we should recognise the immense efforts of millions of public servants—school teachers, police, NHS staff and civil servants—because their work makes our country richer.
We are a Government committed to social justice. Thanks in part to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the biggest-ever rise in child benefit—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Here's John; come on, John."] Perhaps the Opposition will cheer this. By the end of the current Parliament, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. But there is still a long way to go before we can achieve our goal of ending child poverty altogether.
I am well aware of the focus on the 75p rise in the basic state pension. If that was all that the Government had done for pensioners, people would have every right to be angry; but it is not. We chose, deliberately, to get most help to the poorest, through the new minimum income guarantee. About 2 million pensioners have gained, some considerably, by around £15 to £18 per week. We have abolished eye test charges. We have introduced the winter allowance, which now stands at £150. We have given free television licences to pensioners aged 75 and over. In total, an extra £6.5 billion will be spent on pensioners during the current Parliament—£6.5 billion above what the last Government planned. Again, however, I am the first to say that there is more to be done, and step by step, as the country can afford it, we will do it.
This year also saw the best inward investment figures in our country's history. Around the world, people are seeing the strong economic fundamentals that exist in Britain. They see a good business environment, described recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit as the second best in the world.
This Government are committed to a positive and constructive role in Europe. At the Lisbon summit, we helped to set a new economic course for Europe. Most recently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned around the entire debate on tax in Europe. We are leading the debate in Europe on defence. We will maintain a policy on the euro that is designed in our national economic interest, and is good for British jobs, British industry and British investment.
There are many other areas in which we can chart progress. Hand guns are banned. Land mines are banned. Hereditary peers are at last on their way out. There are

paid holidays for the first time. As for the arts, funding is increasing, quality is improving, and our international reputation is a credit to Britain. When they want it, employees have the right to be represented by a trade union. We are starting to cancel third-world debt. The strategic defence review is allowing Britain to count for more in the world.
The annual report shows that 104 of our 177 manifesto commitments have been met, that 71 are on course, and that two are not timetabled. Of course there is more to do. We have been in government for three years. There are 1 million more in work, true, but many thousands of jobs are still lost as a result of industrial change. We now have the best-ever results in our primary schools, true, but our secondary schools are still nowhere near the level of the best in the world. We have an extra 10,000 nurses in the health service, true, but we need many more, and we need cancer and heart surgeons too. The incidence of domestic burglary has fallen by 20 per cent. in three years, true, but violent crime is still increasing.
A lot has been done, but a lot more needs to be done, and this Government will do it. We will deliver the stability. We will deliver the investment that the country needs. We will deliver opportunity for all in a civic society founded on rights and responsibilities.
Our purpose is to build a Britain that is strong, modern and fair. Under this Government, at long last, economic prosperity and fairness are no longer seen as opponents; they are seen as partners in the process of building the Britain of the future.

Mr. William Hague: I must begin by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering a statement of such excitement that at least two Cabinet Ministers were present for the start of it. Only this Prime Minister, when accused of being all talk and no delivery, would try to talk his way out of it. Only he, when accused of being all spin and no substance, would try to spin his way out of trouble. Only he, when accused of being all gloss and gimmicks, would attempt to rebut the charge by publishing a glossy brochure, which is yet another gimmick from his Government of gimmicks.
This is the third annual report. The first was entitled, "So what do you think?"; the second was called,"So, what are we doing?"; the third should accurately be called, "So what on earth are we going to do now?" We have all learned what to expect from the Prime Minister's annual reports.
I shall give hon. Members extracts from these reports, because the Prime Minister has not done so. First, there is the banal.
The UK is home to 59 million people.
Thanks very much for that staggering piece of information. Then there is the completely untrue. Page 46 of today's annual report states that, as part of the delivery of the Government's vision,
this year saw the opening of the UK Sports Institute, providing world-class facilities, coaching and support in Sheffield.
As everyone in Sheffield knows, not a brick has been laid. No such institute has been opened, and the whole thing is now to be sited in London. How are we to believe any of this rubbish? No wonder only 49,000 copies were sold last year, 41,000 of which were bought by the Government. It is not exactly Harry Potter, is it—although it requires as much imagination to believe it?
Then there is the ridiculous. Last year's report said:
The Dome at Greenwich will provide the focus for the country and the rest of the world.
This year's report says that
the dome remains controversial.
Then there are the missing items. There is room this year for a full-page picture of a man on a telephone, but there is no space to mention the Chancellor's £5 billion tax on pension funds, the thousands of criminals released from jail early by the Home Secretary, or the complete collapse of the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy.
Then we have more of the blatantly untrue. In the previous two reports, but not in this year's, the Government provided a helpful list of their claims of progress on their manifesto pledges. Last year they made some interesting claims. For instance:
Develop an integrated transport policy. Done.
It is true that the Deputy Prime Minister integrated petrol price rises with traffic jams.
Hold referendum on any EMU decision. Kept.
Did we all miss something? Have we had a referendum?

Referendum on voting systems. On course.
…EU enlargement. Done.
CAP reform. On course.
Back the 2006 World Cup bid. On course.

That is last year.
This year, the helpful list has disappeared and in its place the interested reader has to visit 177 different web pages in order to add them up. We can see some of the changes. The integrated transport policy has now become:
Improving transport is a key priority for the Government.
What happened? Last year it was all done and integrated. Now it has disintegrated. Holding a referendum on voting systems has become:
The timing of a referendum has not yet been decided.
Last year it was all on course. The 2006 world cup bid now reads:
The final decision is 6 July 2000.
Is anyone updating the Government's website? Could that be a job for an out-of-work press secretary?
Is not today's report—this rubbish, this complete detachment from reality that we have been given—yet another signal that the Prime Minister lives in a fantasy world in which the dome is a great success, everyone wants to abolish section 28, everyone wants to adopt the euro and everyone believes figures produced by the Chancellor? Even when the report makes a claim that is true, it avoids the whole truth. It claims that 1 million jobs have been created in the past three years but does not mention that in the previous three years, under the previous Government, 1.1 million jobs were created. Does the Prime Minister think that we are all citizens in some Soviet village waiting to hear the glorious news about tractor production and willing to overlook the fact that no tractors have actually arrived?
Is not the truth that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly announced £19 billion for this and £21 billion for that, and that they have little or nothing to show for it? The majority in the country have been

asked to pay again and again for services that are getting worse. Now the Government expect everyone to throw their hats in the air as they announce more fantasy figures pretending to know what will happen to the economy in four years' time and throwing all prudence to the winds.
Yesterday, as the Prime Minister threw some ludicrous figures around, he announced his own estimation of increased taxes—if he is allowed to go on governing—of £16 billion. Cannot we now be certain of two things: with this Prime Minister, services will not get any better but taxes will keep going up? If he wants to fight an election on that, we are happy to do so.
Is there not a massive contrast between his ridiculous claims and the daily experience of the mainstream majority of people in this country? Is there not a massive contrast between this self-congratulatory nonsense and the annual report that would be written by the people of Britain? Would not an annual report produced by the people of Britain say that the Prime Minister promised to improve the NHS and cut waiting lists, but the waiting list for the waiting list has doubled? Would not an annual report by the people of Britain say that he promised to be tough on crime, but he has been weak on crime and it is going up? Would not an annual report by the people of Britain say that he promised to cut class sizes, but class sizes in secondary schools have gone up? Would it not say that he promised to keep taxes down, but he has piled billions of pounds of stealth taxes on to hard-working families? Would it not say that he has comprehensively failed to deliver on public services?
Instead of this report, should we not have a real report on the Government? No tax increases at all—abandoned. Twenty-four hours to save the NHS—abandoned. An ethical foreign policy—abandoned. Broken promises—done. Weak leadership—done. Split on the euro—done. The slow slide from admiration to fascination to disillusion to contempt—on course.

The Prime Minister: As ever with the right hon. Gentleman, the jokes were very good, but when he got to policy, he fell apart. When he told us what he wanted to do with the country, one word was rather curiously missing—"guarantee". Where was it? The situation is even better than I said yesterday. Let me read what he wrote in his "Common-sense Revolution" statement in October 1999 to his party conference:
Those guarantees will provide a concrete assurance for voters—and a necessary discipline on future Conservative Ministers when promises look difficult to keep.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot keep his promises as Leader of the Opposition, never mind in government. What would an annual report on him look like? The five guarantees that he put forward last October are now falling apart.
When the right hon. Gentleman finally got to policy, he started to talk about £16 billion. Let us return to that and explain to him what his shadow Chancellor has done. I do not think that he realises. Let us take him through it. On Thursday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering the question. The right hon. Gentleman attacked me on—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Paterson, we shall have a little less noise.

The Prime Minister: Conservative Members will have to listen to me. They attack me for not investing enough


in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. Right. We are going to be putting in investment in all these areas. The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not intend to do that. I shall read to him what the shadow Chancellor said last Thursday and explain it to him. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said:
Mr. Brown has set an unsustainable course for government spending.
So he is opposed to that. He then said:
Mr. Brown plans to raise spending by 3.3 per cent. every year while the economy is predicted to grow by just over 2 per cent.
Have we got those figures? They are 3.3 and 2 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor added that his commitment for a future Conservative Government was to make sure that
overall public spending…would grow less quickly than the economy as a whole.
Are Conservative Members following this? There will be a 3.3 per cent. increase with us and 2 per cent. with them. That means one third off the comprehensive spending review figures next Tuesday. Cuts of one third would be £16 billion.

Mr. Hague: Of taxes.

The Prime Minister: No, £16 billion of extra investment. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand that his shadow Chancellor has agreed to cut that figure from his spending plans. I shall tell the House what that would mean if it happened. If spending was cut by that amount, there would be no extra investment in schools, hospitals, police or transport.
When the right hon. Gentleman finally got to policy, he mentioned two points. As for class sizes, our pledge was to cut them for five, six and seven-year-olds in primary schools. We have done that. It is correct that in secondary schools there is a 0.2 of a pupil per class rise since we took office. That follows 10 years of rises under Conservative Governments. However, our pledge was first to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.
If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to act against crime, perhaps he will explain why last night the shadow Cabinet resiled from its promise to support us on legislation to deal with football hooligans and is not now going to back that legislation. If he is complaining about police numbers, the only way of increasing them is putting in investment. He is now pledged to cut the very investment that is necessary to do that.
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman was fine when he was making his jokes, comments and one-liners. The trouble is that when we get back to policy, while he has been spending his time making the jokes, the shadow Chancellor has spent his time making the policy. As a result, from now until election day every Conservative Member will have to explain how he or she can cut £24 million from each constituency. They will be hounded until they do, and then the right hon. Gentleman will learn the difference between good jokes and good judgment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Since we have the Prime Minister to thank for this scintillating parliamentary experience for us all, does he agree that, from the briefest scan of his statement, what is

linguistically interesting is that "but" appears no less than 12 times? That perhaps tells us a little about the content. Now—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—all of you!

Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister's opening statement was a good deal more factual than what we heard from the leader of the Tory party a few minutes ago, however. Does the Prime Minister agree that if any of us could write an annual report about ourselves, we would probably want to be reasonably self-congratulatory, but to acknowledge that things could get better—[Interruption.] After the Romsey by-election things can only get better for the Conservatives. If this is to be a meaningful exercise in future, would it not be better for the Government to produce an annual report, make an oral statement and take questions, but for the report to be based on an independent audit of what the Government of the day have done and delivered in the preceding year? As a result, would the House not take the exercise with a degree of seriousness that it frankly does not command at the moment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that I stress the "buts"; I do so because they are important. What is clear is that there has been significant progress in many of the areas and towards the objectives that we have set ourselves. I am the first one to admit, however, that we have a lot more to do. What is important is that people understand that we have made significant in-roads—for example, halving long-term unemployment. That is a big gain, but thousands of people are still without jobs. It is important that people understand that in primary schools, class standards are going up and we are getting the investment into school buildings, but there is a lot more to do in our secondary schools and universities. I could take people to parts of the national health service where there are examples of excellent practice—GP surgeries and hospitals, where there are standards of excellence. However, it is also true to say that there are parts of the country where that is not the case. We need to tackle those problems. I am saying that we are setting out a vision and a direction for the Government, which is stability first, then getting people off benefit and into work, and getting the investment in our future that we need, while at the same time ensuring that we are providing that opportunity for all and responsibility from all which are the basis of a decent civic society. Yes, of course, there is a lot more that we can do, but we can be genuinely proud of what we have done in three years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Before I call Back Benchers, may I say this? A number of Members on both sides of the House came in very late when the Prime Minister was halfway through his statement—indeed, I have a list of them all here. I regard this House as being full of honourable Members. Do me the honour of not standing to be called if you came in late. I know you came in late and you know you came in late.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Prime Minister accept that the publication of this annual report underlines


in simple language the key message that this Government, in just over three years, have delivered a tremendous amount to the people by making this country a better and a fairer place for the majority? Is not the key message that the Government also accept that there is more to do and that there is a commitment to do more? Should we not at the same time reflect on the fact that it is only just over three years since the previous Government, now the Opposition, went out of office after 18 years of abject failure during which they destroyed many things for the majority of people?

The Prime Minister: Briefly, I mentioned three things—the new deal for the unemployed, the minimum wage, and the working families tax credit and rises in child benefit. Those are all measure that are not merely right in themselves but that help to create a greater sense of social unity rather than the social division of the Conservative years.

Mr. John Redwood: We were delighted to read that the spinner was about to repent, but after that vacuous performance we know that the Government are all spin and no substance. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is ripping off the motorist at the petrol pump? Has he read in his own annual report that the Government now say that most journeys will continue to be made by road, not public transport? Will he now admit that he is not pricing the motorist off the road and that he should have voted with the Conservative Opposition against the last round of petrol tax increases?

The Prime Minister: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position in the Conservative party? Nothing has made us more pleased in recent times than that. As for petrol prices, let us get one thing clear. Over the past year, I have accepted entirely our responsibility for the fuel duty rise in the first two years and have explained the reason: we needed to clear the deficit and to ensure that the economy was on a stable course. In the past year, the vast bulk of that has come through the rise in oil prices. I am still, however, waiting—even a nod of the head will do—to know whether the Conservatives are pledged to cut fuel duty or not. No. Frozen in immobility. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I do not think that the public will take the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms very seriously.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the state of the nation three years after the Tories were elected in 1979? We are talking about 1982. There were 3 million people out of work, factories were closing all over Britain and there was civil disobedience and fires in our major cities. Let us not forget what happened in Toxteth. It was going on all over the country. The Tories were at 27 per cent. in the opinion polls in that year: 1982. It was the lowest reported poll of any Government since polling began.

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Conservative record was not merely the 3 million unemployed, but the way they increased poverty in our society; the way they deprived many people of opportunity; the way that they meant that investment in our public services did not come

on; the boom and bust, with two recessions—the deepest recessions that this country has had—and a doubling in crime. I am afraid that it is not merely the utterly shambolic state of the Conservative party today that is the problem for the Conservatives. It is also their record. That is something of which we shall also remind the country.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Prime Minister give the House a preliminary explanation of the illustration on page 24?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paul Marsden: If the Leader of the Opposition would like some substance and reality behind the Government's annual report, perhaps I could provide him with some. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Royal Shrewsbury hospital is receiving £1 million-worth of new cancer care equipment, as well as a newly refurbished accident and emergency unit, both of which we were denied by the Tories?

The Prime Minister: Of course, that is absolutely right. What is fascinating is that the last thing that Conservative Members want to do is talk about policy. We had almost 10 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition and he barely mentioned a policy at all. Now they cannot even ask questions on any policy area. The moment that they are put on the spot on policy, they cannot answer a question at all, but what my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. That £1 million investment going into his hospital, but that is £1 million investment that, were the Conservative party elected, with its commitment to cut spending by £16 billion, could not go ahead.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Salmond: Labour Members should keep taking the tablets on page 24—or perhaps it is the latest Scottish opinion polls that they are worried about.
Does the Prime Minister recall the Deputy Prime Minister once telling the House that more people believed in Santa Claus than the claimant figures on unemployment? Why then is the document so complacent about unemployment figures? Is it not the case that, in Scotland, the International Labour Organisation figures, the ones that the Government used to believe in, have risen by 6,000 over the past year; that manufacturing employment is down 47,000 since the general election and now stands at its lowest level since the industrial revolution; and that the number of employees in full-time employment has declined since the last general election? Are any of those facts wrong? Why does none of them appear in the document? Do not the unemployed, instead of being offered soft soap, deserve an answer to those hard facts?

The Prime Minister: As for the point on the ILO figures, we published those figures for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. As for unemployment, we accept entirely that there are still too many people unemployed. However, we are proud of the fact that so many people are back in work. We are proud, too, that


because of policies such as the new deal—which the Scottish National party did not support—we have been able to give people who have been on benefits for years and years their first ever chance of a job.
In the end, politics is a choice. The very worst thing that could happen to the Scottish people would be to end up taking the road that the hon. Gentleman wants them to go down, wrenching Scotland out of the United Kingdom, and ending up with business and industry losing thousands of jobs as a result. We accept entirely—we do in the annual report, and I do now—that we have to do much more on jobs. However, certainly, it is this Government who are doing that, and it is the hon. Gentleman's party that would put all that at risk.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that far too many people in our country—millions, in fact—are disadvantaged from birth onwards because of poverty and education limitations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential for a Labour Government to continue to reverse what happened in the Tory years—the increase in inequalities and the deliberate widening of the gap between the social classes?
As for the national minimum wage—which, obviously, I would like to see increased—does my right hon. Friend recall that the Tories fought it at every possible opportunity? They made us sit up all night to debate that legislation, and they fought it as a matter of principle. Despite what they say now, we cannot trust them not to reverse it should they be re-elected to office.

The Prime Minister: Of course that is right. Conservative Members used to tell us that the moment we introduced the minimum wage, jobs would flood out of the country and there would be a massive rise in unemployment. Indeed, I think the Leader of the Opposition said that the minimum wage was the greatest job-destroying thing that any Government could possibly do. Now, in yet another somewhat humiliating policy U-turn, he has had to say that he wants the minimum wage to stay under the Conservatives. We shall examine very carefully the small print of that commitment.
My hon. Friend was right in another respect. As a result of the changes that we have made, there are 1 million fewer children in poverty at the end of this Parliament than there were when it began. That is a record of which we really can be proud.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I tell the Prime Minister, with every respect, that his statement is about the Government's annual report? Although I would love the Conservative and Unionist party to be in government, it is his report with which the House should concern itself. Is it his view that depriving pension funds of £5 billion annually is a way of encouraging people to provide for their own retirement? By introducing that measure, is he not driving people ever more back on to the state and making them ever less dependent on their own savings?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. Since we came to office, stock market increases—which I think amount to 38 or 39 per cent—have substantially increased the value of those funds. We did make the change to dividend tax credits. However, we did that not only for

reasons of public finance but because—from next year onwards, I think—there will be a significant flow back to companies in reduced corporation-tax receipts.
In the end, it is a matter of taking the decisions that are necessary to produce stability in the economy. When we produce that stability, we grow the economy. We have also avoided the recession that many Conservative Members predicted, and are now able to look ahead to years of steady growth. As I said, the stock market has been buoyant under this Government. Now, we are able—this is very important for pensioners and for everyone else—to get the investment into health care and the national health service that pensioners and others desperately need.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the Prime Minister take it from me that many figures have been bandied about today? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party, told us that, since the general election, Scotland has lost 47,000 manufacturing jobs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, between 1979 and 1997, in my constituency—in just one parliamentary constituency—we lost 30,000 manufacturing jobs? Those losses were delivered by a Government whom the SNP helped to deliver to this country. Since 1997, long-term unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 53 per cent. Will the Prime Minister give my constituents a guarantee that getting people back to work will remain a top priority?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the history of the SNP bringing about the previous Conservative Government. I can give her an assurance that we will certainly continue to tackle long-term unemployment. There has been a very substantial fall, but there is a lot more that we need to do.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Prime Minister accept the estimate of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research that 80 per cent. of people coming off the new deal and into work would have found work without the new deal, or does he accept the Government's earlier estimate that only 60 per cent. would have found work without the new deal?

The Prime Minister: I think that I should correct the hon. Gentleman on what the national institute said. In fact, it said that 160,000 people had been helped off benefit and into work, that youth unemployment would have been double what it is today without the new deal and that, contrary to some reports, the new deal has been a success. I happen to know, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visits some of the young people who have been on the new deal. Those young people had absolutely no chance at all of getting a job. They were virtually unemployable. They have been given proper training and proper skills and they are in work. That is one of the reasons, as the national institute points out, why long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent. Some of us remember the Government whom the hon. Gentleman used to support, who put up unemployment in this country, who said that it was a price worth paying and who turned their back on thousands of British citizens who deserve the chance to get on.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he should not spend too much time


worrying about what the Opposition have to say about spending surpluses because they were experts in building up very large deficits? As for the account from the front, the story is that the first Labour Government did not get a full second term because they finished up with more unemployment at the end than there was at the beginning. The second Labour Government fell foul of the same problem. The third Labour Government, in which I served, finished up with more unemployment at the end than at the beginning. There is a very high prospect that this Government will end up with around 1 million more jobs than when we started. That is good news, but it is not spread evenly around the country. We need to do more for the peripheral areas where the manufacturing base has been denuded. Finally, there are about 12 or 18 months to go before my right hon. Friend calls the next general election. This annual report shows a move in the right direction. My right hon. Friend should keep listening to the Labour and trade union movement and people like Jack Jones, the pensioners leader, and he will pull it off.

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first point about the deficit, he is absolutely right. The Conservatives doubled the national debt. Indeed, when we came to office we were paying more in interest payments on the debt than we were spending on the school system. One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been able to announce today that we are able to increase spending within the overall Budget figures is precisely the diminution of interest payments on the debt. That is a significant step forward. It is also significant that today the Labour party—and the Labour Government—is the party of economic competence. That is a change from many years. As for jobs, it is important that we carry on with what we are doing. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must make sure that the message on jobs and the action on jobs gets spread to every single corner of the country. Some areas have suffered big industrial change affecting mining and other traditional industries and desperately need greater help. We will make sure that they get it.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The annual report says that it is
intended to set out what we have done…and what needs to be…done.
Let me remind the Prime Minister of one thing that he has done. He issued a new ministerial code in which he wrote:
I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their government… I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and the spirit of the Code.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not he agree that he needs to stand by his words and enforce the code? Is not his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister clearly in breach of paragraph 113, which refers to trade unions, by accepting the tenancy of a flat worth at least £1,000 a month to him?

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman knows that that complaint has been dismissed. However, what is interesting and significant about the Opposition today is that they are making not a squeak on schools, hospitals or

any other important matter. The House hears only pathetic little smears from a party that is not just unfit for government, but increasingly unfit for opposition.

Kali Mountford: When my right hon. Friend is considering where and how to make investments such as those reported in the annual report, does he take account of the effect on the 59 million people who receive the benefits of accident and emergency departments and cancer treatments, or of computers and books in schools? The list goes on and on. Or does he take account of acts of war and of God? What is it—people or pestilence?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that the investment that we have announced is the investment that we will carry out.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: By happy coincidence, it is almost exactly a year since the Conservative party won the Eddisbury by-election, with an increased majority. I have spent my year travelling around the many schools in my constituency. Why does the annual report make no mention of the collapse of morale and enthusiasm among teachers as a result of initiative overload, interference and the imposition of centralisation? Is that not yet another example of spin over substance, and of the Government's contempt for the British people?

The Prime Minister: It is quite something when the Opposition have to congratulate themselves on holding seats that they managed to hold by a small margin. As for schools, nothing would harm teachers' morale more than cutting back on the extra investment that we are putting in. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that schools in his constituency did not welcome the extra money that they got in the Budget? I bet they did welcome it. As a result of the commitments made by the shadow Chancellor, schools know that that investment would go if a Conservative Government were elected. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the additional investment that we are making—in schools, hospitals, transport and the police—is unsustainable. [Interruption.] They have just shouted out, "Not deliverable." There it is: it is not deliverable by them, but it is deliverable by us.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, when this Government came to power, there were 13.4 million people living in poverty, including 4 million children. Does he agree that those figures show the previous Conservative Government's total indifference to the neediest families in the country?

The Prime Minister: The figures do show that. Poverty and social division grew and, as a result, so did welfare spending. The previous Conservative Government increased welfare spending by an average of 4 per cent. in real terms, year on year on year. In fact, they increased welfare spending more than they increased spending on schools and hospitals. Because this Government are cutting unemployment, we are getting benefit payments down. If the extra money that we have deliberately made available for pensioners and child benefit is taken out, it is clear that welfare bills are falling. What the Tories did was not just unfair, it was inefficient and went against the


basic requirement of a modern economy—that we use and develop the talents of all our people, and not just of the few.

Mr. David Heath: I thought page 24 was some sort of opinion poll. Is there anything in this annual report for rural areas? It seems to me that there is not. Three and a half years into this Government, many rural areas are still saddled with a Conservative distribution formula that causes our schools and schoolchildren to lose out. When is something going to be done about that, and when will we have an annual report that says that resources are fairly distributed across the whole country?

The Prime Minister: Of course, there are things in the report for rural areas, noticeably the increased investment in transport. I was talking yesterday about the issue of rural post offices and how important that is as well. Rural areas, too, benefit from a strong economy. But I understand that we need to do more in areas such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents. In particular, we need to do more investing in the essential infrastructure of the country. I believe that we now have the resources, through economic stability, the fall in debt repayments and the fall in unemployment benefit claimants, to put that investment in.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

BILL PRESENTED

FOOTBALL (DISORDER)

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook and Mr. Charles Clarke presented a Bill to make further provision for the purpose of preventing violence or disorder at or in connection with association football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 160].

Opposition Day

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Parliament and the Executive

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back-Bench Members.

Mr. William Hague: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Parliament is the essential and definitive link between citizen and government and should remain the institution at the heart of the nation's democratic system; regrets the accelerated loss of power and influence from Parliament to the Executive since 1997, rendering Parliament less able to hold government to account; and calls for the urgent introduction of the reforms necessary to reassert the authority of the House and to reverse the bypassing and undermining of Parliament in recent years.
Today we have called a debate on the decline in the power of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. In doing so, we are raising an issue of great concern, not just to members of our party but to members of all parties in this House.
Every informed commentator, every constitutional expert and every parliamentarian who is being honest with themselves believes that Parliament has been steadily diminished and is no longer able to do its job properly. The reason that this matters to everyone outside this building, as well as everyone inside it—

Ms Bridget Prentice: rose—

Mr. Hague: I shall make a little progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
The reason it matters is this: only in a country with a strong Parliament is there genuine representative democracy; only with a strong Parliament is there good and accountable government; only with a strong Parliament is law making both robust and sensitive; and only with a strong Parliament do the people of that country have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.
It is true that Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has been declining for over a century under Governments of all political persuasions; but it is also true that the present Government have done more than any other in living memory to create a Parliament that bows and scrapes to Ministers, that nods through complicated and important legislation with only cursory investigation, that lets Departments get away with poorly drafted and ill-thought-through laws, that is sidelined and marginalised from the national political debate, and that absconds from its democratic responsibility of holding the Executive to account.
That is not just a Conservative view. Let us hear from the Labour party's own former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster):
I said that this place must never be the Prime Minister's poodle. Unfortunately, it has become so.—[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol. 323. c. 259.]


Or let us listen to someone who has spent much of his professional life following our proceedings from the Press Gallery—Robin Oakley. This is what he wrote in The House Magazine:
In over 30 years reporting Parliament I can never recall a time when the proceedings have been
like this. He continues
The executive…cares little for Parliament…unless the government begins to respect the Commons more, will anybody else begin to do so?
Anyone who has been in the House for more than a few years knows that fewer Government decisions are made here than ever before; fewer Government decisions are explained here than never before; and fewer Government decisions are influenced by what happens here than ever before.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice).

Ms Bridget Prentice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
If this place is so important for scrutinising the Executive, why has the right hon. Gentleman not called a debate on the economy and on the new deal on employment?

Mr. Hague: The Opposition hold debates about a range of issues on every possible day that is allocated to them in the House of Commons. We ask the Prime Minister about every single issue, but we do not receive an answer on many. That is our duty, and we try to carry it out.
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said in a recent debate, because this is not a concern of one side of the House alone:
All Members of Parliament understand that we got here with the support of party politicians and need to defend particular party political views, but we also have a duty to ordinary men and women who have let this Parliament grow up over 900 years…
Parliament is not a rubber stamp for the arrangements of Executives or of Front Benchers… If…those groups succeed in getting what they want, we shall know that Parliament no longer represents the interests of the United Kingdom.—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 687–8.]
The Government's amendment to our motion talks about reforms of the House of Lords.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Hague: I will give way again in a moment. I intend to give way many times and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have finished this point.
The Government's amendment also talks about devolution to Scotland and to Wales. We can debate the merits of all those things, but the House of Commons remains the keystone of democratic accountability in this country. [Interruption.] It is by voting for Members of our House that our fellow citizens believe that they can make a difference to how they are governed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that this debate will proceed better with less barracking and less shouting on either side. We want to hear the debate.

Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will give way again in a moment.
Millions more people vote in the elections for this House than for any other elected institution. For most people in Britain, this House is the one connection between the opinions they hold and the actions of their Government. When this House is diminished, marginalised or sidelined, democracy itself is harmed. A weak or frightened House of Commons saps public confidence in the political process.

Mr. Salmond: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's case that that is surely a function of the Government's large majority based on a minority of the vote? In the Scots Parliament recently, we had an occasion when the Executive parties—Labour and the Liberals—tried to delay a Bill to abolish warrant sales. They were overturned by a parliamentary majority. That was possible because that Parliament has proportional representation and a balanced system. If the right hon. Gentleman wants this Parliament to do the same thing, why does he not support proportional representation?

Mr. Hague: Because this House must be the connection between the votes of the voters and how they are governed. Only in our electoral system is there the connection between how people cast their votes and which Government hold office—a view I know that the Home Secretary holds to dearly. Opposition would sometimes achieve more in the House of Commons if all the members of minority parties were regular in their attendance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: The time has come—[Interruption.] I am glad to have generated so much interest. I will give way again in a moment.
The time has come to arrest the steady diminishment of the House. The time has come to stop the increasing power of the Executive.

Ms Claire Ward: rose—

Mr. Hague: I will give way again in a moment. The time has come to stop the sidelining of Parliament. New reforms are proposed in the name of modernisation which will increase the power of the Executive and diminish and sideline our Parliament yet further. Unless Members of Parliament speak out now, it will be too late to do so.

Ms Ward: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he thinks that it is so important to have a presence to hold the Government accountable, why is no Conservative Member of Parliament in the top 200 for attendance at votes in the House?

Mr. Hague: I saw that someone had done a little research on voting records, so I did a little research of my own. In fact, I compared the voting records of the Cabinet with those of the shadow Cabinet. The Chancellor has voted in 18 per cent. of Divisions—[Interruption.] I am coming to the Back Benchers. The hon. Lady asked about Conservative Members, and I think that Labour Members should have the information.
So far this year, the Chancellor has voted in 18 per cent. of Divisions, and the shadow Chancellor in 53 per cent. The Home Secretary voted in 43 per cent.


of Divisions, the shadow Home Secretary in 51 per cent. The Foreign Secretary voted in 15 per cent. of Divisions, the shadow Foreign Secretary in 53 per cent. Shall I go on? Would right hon. and hon. Members like more information? [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] The Education Secretary voted in 27 per cent., the shadow Education Secretary in 58 per cent. The Agriculture Minister voted in 43 per cent., the shadow Agriculture Minister in 50 per cent. The Culture Secretary voted in 38 per cent., the shadow Culture Secretary in 51 per cent. The importance of these figures to the hon. Lady is that it is not Ministers who stay here and vote but the mugs on the Back Benches whom they rely on to do it. [Interruption.]
If anyone doubts—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: I want to make a little progress. I will allow an intervention from another stooge or two in due course.
Anyone who has doubts that Government legislation is not being properly scrutinised should look at what has happened recently to Bills that have come before the House. During three years of this Parliament, 36 Bills have been guillotined or programmed—more than the number for the entire period of Baroness Thatcher's Government and more than double the number under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Since the second world war, a quarter of all such motions have been moved by this Labour Government.
This week, we dealt with the hugely sensitive Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on Report and Third Reading. Seven of the 10 groups of amendments were never debated, including crucial new amendments on the name of the RUC—a matter of the highest public importance. That issue has been the subject of months of debate through newspaper columns and in Northern Ireland itself, but it was not debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. Only three Members were allowed to speak on Third Reading, with the result that the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was unable to speak in that debate.
The problem is made worse by the poor quality of so much of the legislation that comes before the House. The Greater London Authority Bill was so badly drafted that the Government tabled 46 new clauses on Report and 820 amendments—500 of which were tabled in the House of Lords at a late stage in the progress of the measure. Consideration of the Bill was guillotined and, as a result, three quarters of all the public-private provisions affecting the London underground passed into law without any parliamentary consideration. A completely new tax invented by the Deputy Prime Minister—the workplace parking levy—was introduced without one minute of debate in either House.
Of the 367 amendments tabled by the Government in the Lords to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, only two were debated in this House. Clauses on the penalties for rail companies caught carrying clandestine immigrants, on the rights of detained people to be released on bail and on the application of the new asylum arrangements in Scotland went undebated and unscrutinised. In future, constituents will come to the surgeries of Members on both sides of the House to ask us why this or that point

was not made during the passage of that legislation. We shall have to tell them that Parliament never debated that important legislation and it is not adequate.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the recent book of his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)? It states:
the 1980s saw further encroachments of the executive into parliamentary independence. The use of guillotine motions escalated and the increasingly dominant position of the Prime Minister within the Cabinet affected the mood of the House.
If that was happening in the 1980s, why did the right hon. Gentleman never speak against it in the House?

Mr. Hague: It would have been hard for me to speak in this House at a time when I was at university. If the hon. Gentleman wants to repeat at greater length points that I have already made, he is welcome to do so. I said that Parliament's powers in relation to the Executive have been declining for a century and that they have done so under Governments of all political persuasions, but that this Labour Government have rapidly accelerated that process.
The Constitution Unit, an independent body that includes a Minister—the Advocate-General for Scotland—noted that
the originators of the logjam—
in legislation—
are the Government… Bills are allowed into the legislative programme that are insufficiently prepared, and then subjected to rafts of Government amendments as they go through Parliament.
The unit pointed out that that is the Cabinet's responsibility.
Parliament is being sidelined in the treatment of legislation, but it is also being sidelined in the provision of information from the Government. There is no better example of that than the Budget. The information provided in the Chancellor's Budget statements is no longer adequate for any commentator, economist or family who are concerned about their household budget to make an informed judgment about what he is doing with the nation's finances.
All previous Chancellors—Conservative and Labour—used to present the House with a full account of which taxes were going up and which were going down. They then tried to put the best gloss on it—but not this Chancellor. In his 1998 Budget speech, a new instalment system of payment for larger companies turned out to be £2,000 million tax increase on businesses. In his Budget speech last year, he aligned
national insurance arrangements for the self-employed closer to those of employees—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 187.]
but it was later discovered to be a £240 million tax increase. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but there is far too much shouting and other voices are being heard. We should be listening to the right hon. Member who currently has the Floor of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: I will give way to more hon. Members in a moment but, judging by the quality of the interventions from Labour Members so far, they should be grateful that I have not given way to more.
The new and devastating stealth tax on high-tech contractors is known as IR35 only because it appeared in the fine print of Inland Revenue press release No. 35 and was not mentioned in the Budget at all.
This year, the Chancellor tried a new trick. He used different figures but called them the same name. No pensioner or car owner listening to the Chancellor this year could have possibly known that he was using different inflation figures when he said that he was uprating both the basic pension and petrol duty in line with inflation—but pensions went up 1 per cent. and petrol tax went up 3.5 per cent.
There was a time when a Labour Chancellor resigned because a small part of his Budget appeared in the evening papers as he was speaking. This Chancellor regards his speech simply as the official leak in a long string of leaks of the Budget, all of which are designed to conceal its real contents from the voting public. Yet the central role of Parliament is to supply the Government with money for expenditure in return for a proper and informed debate on the level of taxation. Our predecessors went to war with each other and with the monarchy to establish that principle. Now our Parliament is unable to carry out even this central role.
But, of course, the person who has done more than any other member of the Government to try to ignore, override, sideline and dismiss Parliament is the Prime Minister himself. Let me remind the House of what he said before the election. He said that
the lesson of parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity… The rights of backbenchers have to be protected. They will…be wary of changes which appear…to make the job of government easier.
That is what the Prime Minister told an enthusiastic Charter 88 audience before the election. However, in the very first parliamentary week after the election, he unilaterally cut the number of Prime Minister's Question Times in half. He said:
parliamentary change…has to be carried out with care and sensitivity
and he then imposed one of the biggest changes of procedure without consulting a single Back-Bench Member of Parliament and without consulting the report by the Select Committee on Procedure, which explicitly ruled out such a move. He said:
The rights of Back Benchers have to be protected
and he then halved overnight the one opportunity that Back Benchers have to ask questions on behalf of their constituents to the most important Minister in the land.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: I shall give to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and then proceed a little further.

Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman has just alleged that there is less opportunity now for Back Benchers. Can he not accept that 15 and 15 equals 30? If—heaven forbid—he were ever Prime Minister, would he consider his Back Benchers to be mugs if they stayed and voted for his Government?

Mr. Hague: Personally, I favour bringing Prime Minister's Question Time back to twice a week and it being for 20 minutes. Back Benchers would then have two opportunities in the week to question the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister claimed yesterday to miss fewer Question Times than his predecessor—which when he has cut in half the number of occasions that it happens is hardly a proud boast. He says that he goes to any lengths to turn up to every Question Time—which is hardly surprising when we know who stands in his place when he does not. He claims to have answered more questions than any of his predecessors, but no one in the country thinks that he has answered a single one. It is true that he stands up, opens his mouth and words come out, but that is not the same as giving an answer.
Cutting Prime Minister's questions in half was an act of prime ministerial arrogance and disregard for the rights of Parliament. It is not the only way that this Prime Minister avoids democratic scrutiny. I have been looking at how many debates this Prime Minister and his predecessors have led on the Floor of the House in the first two years of a Parliament. It is an interesting score sheet: Clement Attlee 29; Harold Macmillan 22; Harold Wilson 24; my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, 25; Baroness Thatcher and Lord Callaghan 13 each; my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon 10; and the Prime Minister 3. Congratulations—he has spoken in less than one third of the number of debates than any post-war Prime Minister before him. He will say that he has delivered his fair share of statements. What he does not say is that the great majority of his statements are on international summits which even he cannot wriggle out of, and the rest are meaningless public relations exercises like the one we have been subjected to today.
Let us look at those occasions when the Prime Minister has a choice whether to come here or not. The voting scoresheets of Prime Ministers are as follows: Harold Wilson, 35 per cent.; my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, 36 per cent.; Lord Callaghan, 38 per cent.; Baroness Thatcher, 45 per cent.; my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, 41 per cent.; and the Prime Minister, 5 per cent. What that means is not just that he is not around the Palace of Westminster at voting time, but that he is not around the Palace of Westminster at any time. That diminishes the role of Parliament and its effectiveness in scrutinising the Executive.

Mr. Phil Hope: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the rights of Back Benchers to scrutinise Parliament. Will he explain why Conservative members of the Education and Employment Committee attended only one third of the meetings they were entitled to attend?

Mr. Hague: What a devastating piece of information. Hon. Members of all parties do their best to attend Select Committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will give the answer, which concerns what really needs doing with Select Committees. I agree with the Liaison Committee report on Select Committees. The Government claim to have given more time for debates on Select Committee reports, but that is no substitute for giving real power and independence to Select Committees and making sure that Parliament can exercise rigorous scrutiny of the Government.
Twenty-one of the 33 members who produced the Liaison Committee report are Labour Members, and they say:
There has been a tendency to use the extent or frequency of debates on select committee reports as a criterion of success.
But debates must be both timely and effective. There is little value in a debate which does no more than allow members of the Select Committee to re-live their inquiry months after the event.
It is time to reform the House of Commons and improve our procedures, but not with reforms that diminish our power to scrutinise Government legislation and not with Modernisation Committee reports that make it easier for Ministers to avoid being held accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that, at a meeting of the Select Committee on International Development two weeks ago, four members out of eleven were present—three Conservatives and one Liberal.

Mr. Hague: We could go on with these records for a long time. The point is that Select Committees need strengthening.
The so-called Modernisation Committee was supposed to come up with reforms that would strengthen Parliament, and it set out its spirited aims last year. Its wishes were to restore the Chamber as a place where the Executive is held properly to account by Members; where Government policy is first announced and tested; and where the terms of trade between Government and House are shifted back to the House. These are aims that I unreservedly support, and reforms to Parliament which promote them should be universally supported across this House.
However, the latest report from the Modernisation Committee has tragically failed its own remit. Its latest report proposes changes to the programming of legislation and the timing of votes that would shift the terms of trade in the opposite direction by greatly reducing the opportunities for the Opposition—and the Government's own Back Benchers—to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Hague: I have given way several times, and I will give way again later.
The report proposes timetabling all Government Bills and delaying all votes which would otherwise be taken after 10 o'clock until the following Wednesday afternoon. These proposals represent a serious assault on the power of Back Benchers. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Shouting will not help the tempo of the debate and will make no difference to whether or not the right hon. Gentleman takes interventions.

Mr. Hague: These proposals represent a serious assault on the power of Back Benchers. Delaying votes until days after a debate strips away any possibility that a Member

of Parliament may be influenced by what has been said in the debate before a Division, and is designed mainly for the convenience of the Government because even the Prime Minister could get a decent voting record, as the votes would coincide with his weekly visits to the House of Commons. The ideas of the Modernisation Committee have not come—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: I shall not give way until I have talked about the Modernisation Committee for a few moments.
The ideas have not come from Back Benchers, but have been driven forward by the Leader of the House, who is the Chairman of the Committee. I have a copy of the first draft of the report, the top of which shows that it was faxed to Parliament from an office in Whitehall. Nothing could symbolise better how the rights and relevance of Parliament are being progressively diminished by the Government themselves than the fact that the reports of our own Committee now originate in Whitehall.
The minority report of the Modernisation Committee notes:
The absolute divorce of decision from discussion in the method proposed, for the convenience of government supporters, will heighten cynicism about the relevance of debate and discussion, and undermines the parliamentary process.
Programming more legislation and restricting votes may suit the convenience of Ministers, but it does not suit the cause of good government or a strong Parliament. It flies in the face of the fundamental right of Back-Bench Members of Parliament to question Ministers about the actions of Government on behalf of their constituents.
We should look at the history of recent late sittings. The House sat until 3 am on the remaining stages of the Terrorism Bill in March because Labour Back Benchers and Liberal Democrat Members were alarmed at what they felt were the implications for civil liberties. Parliament gave them a platform so that they could have their say.
The House sat until 1 am in early April considering the Freedom of Information Bill because Labour Back Benchers were deeply unhappy with legislation which, they felt, did not match their party's commitments. They wanted to press the Government to improve the Bill.
Opportunities for debate do not just make better Back Benchers—they make better Ministers, too. When I was a junior Minister taking a Bill through the House, there were times when the late Bob Cryer would debate the detail of it exhaustively with me, testing whether I knew what I was talking about. It is a good job for the Prime Minister that Bob Cryer is not here today, as he would not have been afraid of questioning Labour Ministers any more than he was of questioning Conservative Ministers.
Today, people such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) do that to Labour Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke for many Members when she said that neither of my right hon. Friends was automatically high on the list of people whom she loved dearly. However, she thought that their actions were legitimate, and said:
Parliament cannot be organised into a nice, neat tidy bundle so that the Executive takes decisions, tells Parliament what it has decided and produces Bill that, even if they are wrong, can be


presented as a package and pushed through, because no one any longer alters a word of them.—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 687.]
I agree whole-heartedly.
The answer to those who say that staying up late to debate Government legislation is wearing them out is simple: we should have a legislative programme that is not so packed that there is no scope for debate. We should have a legislative programme that is not so bursting at the seams that even its own supporters cannot press amendments. We should have a legislative programme that is not so stuffed with poorly drafted Bills that it requires hundreds of Government amendments that are never even considered. The Modernisation Committee's approach to the weight of the legislative programme should not be to make it even easier for Ministers to force their business through, which further weakens the vital link in this House between the governed and the Government.
The House needs reform. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) before putting forward my own reforms.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of whether he knows what he is talking about, may I ask a question? He does not have a country to run and does not have policies to develop, as that is the job of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). All he has to do is sit in his office and dream up punch lines for Prime Minister's questions. In those circumstances, will he explain why he votes in less than a third of Divisions?

Mr. Hague: Attacking me for voting 32 per cent of the time when the Prime Minister votes 5 per cent. of the time strikes me as a spectacular own goal. The Prime Minister has enough time to run around for a photo opportunity every day, so he should have enough time to come to the House of Commons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a member of the Modernisation Committee, can I ask my right hon. Friend how he believes the House should deal with a situation in which the timing of votes means that votes on matters discussed after 10 o'clock on a Wednesday or Thursday, and on which there will be a Division, will not be taken until the following Wednesday? How will the House deal with Members who were not even in the country when the debate took place; and how will it deal with those who took part in the debate but who, for legitimate parliamentary reasons, cannot attend the following Wednesday afternoon?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That would damage the proceedings of Parliament still further. There are Labour Members who would not know what they were voting on when it came to a Wednesday afternoon. I know some Labour Members who do not know what they are voting on 10 minutes after a debate, let alone five days later.
We need reforms and proposals that will make our Parliament stronger, improve our laws and hold our Government to greater democratic account. A good place to start is the recent report of the Liaison Committee, which is made up of 33 Select Committee Chairmen, 21 of whom are senior Labour Members, and the Chairman

of which is the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). The report recommends sensible reforms that build on the success of the Select Committee system in providing, as they say, independent scrutiny of Government, exposing mistaken and short-sighted policies and so on.
The Committee proposes to give the House of Commons more teeth by taking appointments to Select Committees out of the hands of the Whips—a principle that I, too, believe would enhance the independence and reputation of Select Committees. As a party leader, I am happy to accept that principle, and I invite the Prime Minister to accept it when he responds to my speech.
The Government's response to that impressive report, compiled by senior members of their own party, was, as usual, dismissive. They said:
The Government are not convinced that a change to the current system is needed.
I wonder how many of those on the Government Front Bench have read the Liaison Committee report. It is no wonder the Committee says that too many Government responses to Select Committees
are superficial and give the impression that they have been drafted with only a cursory look at the summary recommendations, ignoring the analysis and the argument.
That is why we set up the commission for strengthening Parliament, under the chairmanship of Lord Norton of Louth, to make recommendations. That is mainly, but not wholly, the work of Conservatives. The commission took evidence from a former Speaker, a former head of the civil service, academics, journalists, pressure groups and MPs from both sides of the House.
This week the commission published its report. Its proposals deserve careful consideration by MPs on both sides of the House, and there are some that we should be able to accept immediately. First, all parties should accept the principle, set out in the Liaison Committee report and the Norton report, that appointments to Select Committees should now be taken out of the hands of party managers. It must be wrong that the Government, through the Whips Office, choose the people who are supposed to hold the very same Government to account.
Secondly, we should give departmental Select Committees more powers of the kind that the Public Accounts Committee already has, so that parliamentarians at least stand a chance of keeping track of the work of huge Government Departments. We should establish a separate career structure for Select Committee Chairmen so that not everyone feels that they have to become a Minister or shadow Minister. Thirdly, we should make much greater use of two small advances that the Government have made, and publish more legislation in draft so that mistakes can be spotted before a Bill reaches Parliament and make much greater use of Special Standing Committees to scrutinise legislation.
Fourthly, we should look at ways of improving the topicality of Parliament, because unless people feel that their MPs are talking about issues that are relevant to them, they will lose faith in the democratic process. One solution would be to reduce the number of days' notice required for oral questions; another would be to restore Prime Minister's questions to two slots a week.
There are many other proposals in the report which hon. Members on both sides of the House should consider carefully. They include: reforming Question Time and


putting the emphasis on depth, not breadth; putting more of the parliamentary timetable in the hands of Committees of the House; making the publication of Bills in draft standard practice; making changes to the way in which Parliament considers delegated legislation and statutory instruments, which is woefully inadequate today; making substantial improvements to the scrutiny given to European legislation; appointing a parliamentary investigations officer to investigate cases where information is withheld from Parliament; amending the civil service code—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hague: Hon. Members wanted proposals. These are proposals—amending the civil service code so that civil servants are required to provide Members of Parliaments with information; and vastly improving the scrutiny of Government taxation and spending plans. Those are just some of the reforms that could enhance the power and reputation of Parliament, and we should consider them.

Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Christopher Leslie: rose—

Mr. Hague: We say that it is time that we had Ministers who stopped pre-announcing major Government policies on the "Today" programme, and started announcing those policies where they are supposed to be announced—right here, to the elected representatives of the people. It is time that we had Ministers who stopped evading the legitimate questions about the activities of Government, and started giving full and prompt replies to Members of Parliament who have a democratic right to have their inquiries answered.

Mr. Derek Twigg: rose—

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Hague: It is time that we had Ministers who stopped stuffing the legislative programme full of ill-considered and badly drafted Bills, and started allowing Parliament proper time to do its job of scrutinising legislation. It is time that we had Ministers who stopped receiving leaked Select Committee reports from toadying Government Members, and started letting the Select Committees do their job of holding to account those who wield Executive power.
It is time that we had a Prime Minister who understood that he is accountable to Parliament; a Prime Minister who spent time at the Palace of Westminster, instead of seeking the first opportunity to escape back up Whitehall; a Prime Minister who listened to elected Members of Parliament and was accountable to the people, instead of listening only to unelected advisers and spin doctors accountable to no one; a Prime Minister who bothered to vote on the very laws that he seeks to impose on the country, instead of staying away and ordering his Back Benchers through the Lobby; a Prime Minister who came to the Dispatch Box twice a week and answered questions, like every other Prime Minister in living memory.
The truth is that, like a fish, the Government have rotted from the head. Their contemptuous treatment of Parliament begins with the contemptuous attitude,

obvious to everyone, of the Prime Minister to the House. He has created a Government of secret briefings, leaks, gimmicks and gossip, in which power rests with unelected advisers, spin doctors and cronies.
That is what is meant by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) when he speaks of the
vacuum at the heart of New Labour;
or by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), when he says that the Government
is centralised and arrogant. It's all glitz;
or by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), when he speaks of "hollowness and spinnery" and "the obsession with presentation"; or by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) when he says that people see "New Labour as alien" and find
the new elite's choice of friends strange;
or by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) today, when he calls his fellow Ministers "automatons"; or by the Deputy Prime Minister when he pleads in public:
I wish somebody could stop the spin doctors.
Despite one of the largest majorities in history, the Government's behaviour in the House is characterised by weakness and cowardice. They are a weak and cowardly Government who announce policy in press releases, rather than on the Floor of the House. They are a weak and cowardly Government who put all the power in the hands of spin doctors, rather than Ministers of the Crown. They are a weak and cowardly Government who leak through secret briefings, rather than make statements at the Dispatch Box.
The Government's style is best summed up by one of those notorious unelected advisers, Labour's former director of policy, who speaks of
a culture in which the approval of advisers in Number 10 or Number 11 is more important than the opinion of the Ministers they serve.
The true attitude of the Government leadership is best summed up by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the crown prince of new Labour, who says that
the era of representative democracy is slowly coming to an end.
I say that representative democracy must not come to an end. I say that parliamentarians of all parties must ensure that it does not come to an end. Members of all parties who care about democracy and acknowledge the central role of the House of Commons must join together in making sure that it has not come to an end.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on carrying out in three years the biggest programme of constitutional reform for a century, including devolution to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, bringing government closer to the people; and welcomes the fundamental reform of the House of Lords and the establishment of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons which has doubled the number of backbench debates and quadrupled the opportunities to debate Select Committee reports as part of the 48 recommendations implemented so far.'.


[Interruption.] To be frank, if I were a Conservative Member, I would have left some time ago.
There are serious issues to do with this subject, but that was not a serious speech. After all, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his party were in government for 18 years, but they did none of the things that they now say are absolutely vital. With the greatest respect to them, what they really object to is the fact that we are the Government; that is their real problem.
Instead of making that eccentric speech on the first occasion of his calling a debate as the Leader of the Opposition, he could have discussed jobs, the economy, schools, hospitals or even crime. I do not know whether people in his pubs and clubs are talking about pre-legislative scrutiny, but they are not in mine. I heard it said the other day that, as a 16-year-old. the right hon. Gentleman used to read Hansard underneath the bedclothes. That was the speech of such a person. There are serious issues, and I will come to them; it is an important topic, but I must say that that speech did not match its importance.
I have read the report of the Norton committee; it is a worthy document, so far as it goes, and we shall of course consider it. It talks about the fact that Prime Ministers have become unaccountable to Parliament and says that perhaps they are perceived as having too much power, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that its footnote refers to a book that was published, I am afraid, in 1993. It said of the Thatcher Government:
Far more than previous premiers she relied on a whole squad of advisers, speech writers, her political office, and assorted media fixers and spin merchants. By 1983 she had completely abandoned conventional electioneering in which she might encounter ordinary voters.
Somehow he missed that bit out of his speech.
Let me give the facts. Of course the right hon. Gentleman may have a point on the votes because we have a large majority, although I refer him to the excellent document issued by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on the voting records of some Conservative Members and, particularly, their attendance on Select Committees. If he considers what is obviously my job—which is, as Prime Minister, to answer questions in the House of Commons—he will see that I do, in fact, miss fewer sittings. On any comparison, I have spent as many, if not more, hours in the House answering questions. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is true.
Let me give the details on ministerial statements. During this Parliament, Ministers have made 238 statements—on average, one every two sitting days. I have made 31, including the one that I have just made. That compares with 157 ministerial statements during the first years of the previous Administration. I turn next to the sittings of the House. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the facts bore Opposition Ministers, but it is important simply to give them. In the first Session after the 1992 general election, the total number of sitting days was 240, and the House sat for 1,933 hours and 34 minutes. In the first Session after May 1997, the total number of sitting days was 241, and the House sat for 2,117 hours and 36 minutes.
If we look at the second Session under the previous Government, Madam Speaker, the total number of sitting days was 154, and the House sat for 1,258 hours. It is correct that the total number of sitting days was 149—

five days less—under our Administration, but the House sat for 1,378 hours. It simply is not correct to say that we have not considered matters and put them before the House properly.
On guillotines, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has added together guillotines and programme motions. If those two things are separated out, of course the figures look far less good from his point of view. Madam Speaker, on the specific points that he made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Prime Minister does not mind, I should perhaps point out to him that Madam Speaker has changed places with me.

The Prime Minister: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition—when thinking creatively about the constitution, which he does not seem to do often—explained in a speech last year that the Opposition believed that they could automatically timetable all Bills and abolish the practice whereby all Bills that had not completed their passage by the end of a Session failed? Is not that another example of hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right.
Turning to the substance of the Norton commission report, the reputation of Parliament does not lie in having 20 Cabinet Ministers rather than 22 and no one will be better governed through fine-tuning the ministerial code. Those are good issues for academics and constitutional experts, but they are not the big issues that Parliament should debate when we consider our role in modern society and our relationship with the Executive today. We live in a time of great change. The public are changing. Their expectations of Parliament and politics are rising. Our institutions are the best for this country, but it is entirely right, as the Modernisation Committee suggests, that we move with the times and modernise our practices in the House.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: In a moment.
I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition; Parliament and the Executive are structures of power. They owe their legitimacy not to themselves, but to the people—the electors. Our task is to try—in so far as is possible and consistent with representative democracy—to do the people's will. The trouble with his vision of democracy and with going into each procedural aspect of the House of Commons is that that vision stops about two metres in front of his nose. We need to debate other and bigger issues if we are to explore the true relationship between the Executive and Parliament.

Mr. Swayne: On the question of democracy and the ability to debate, the Prime Minister complains that we have added together the programme motions and the guillotines. Will he admit that, for the Back Bencher, their effect is the same? No Member could have been more wrong-footed by the programming from start to finish of


the Scotland Act 1998 than the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was silenced continually as clause after clause was agreed to without debate.

The Prime Minister: I cannot say that I have ever noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) being silenced. The point is that a programme motion is agreed between the sides. As the hon. Gentleman heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward), his party proposed that. Of course modernising the proceedings of Parliament must be part of the objective. We are trying to do that.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: In a moment.
We have taken major steps to modernise the other place and to improve the ways in which the House can work. I emphasise that the procedures of the House are not matters for the Government or the official Opposition. I want to make one thing clear: they are matters for individual Members of Parliament who exercise their own judgment on a free vote. They are truly matters for the House. If I may say so, following Madam Speaker's announcement yesterday, we shall elect her successor by a free vote, independently exercised, of the Members of the House.

Mr. Morgan: On modernisation, and given the success of proportional representation in Wales, whose First Minister was dismissed, and in Scotland, where the Government are being overturned on the matter of warrant sales, what is the Prime Minister's opinion of the introduction of PR for Westminster?

The Prime Minister: As I have often said, the arguments are different in relation to Westminster. In respect of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, I believe that there were particular reasons for introducing that system, not least the existence of a different set of political parties—the hon. Gentleman's party, for example—that operate with substantial support in the political system. However, that does not mean that that system is right for the House of Commons.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Liaison Committee report has huge support across the House: 211 Members, the vast majority of them Labour, signed my early-day motion. If the Liaison Committee report is a parliamentary issue rather than a matter for the Government, may we have a free vote on it?

The Prime Minister: There we are. That is the legitimate voice of Back Benchers speaking. [Interruption.] This is a matter for the House, and of course we shall have a position on it.

Mr. Hague: I do not think that the Prime Minister has given a full answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The hon. Gentleman asked whether, in view of what the Prime Minister had just said about the importance of free votes on House of Commons matters, members of his party could have a free vote on the Liaison Committee report. Opposition Members will have a free vote. Will the Prime Minister do the same as me,

and—as a party leader—undertake to vote in favour of Select Committees no longer being appointed by the Whips, as is suggested in the report?

The Prime Minister: Yes, there will be a free vote, as I have just indicated. No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's proposition with regard to Select Committees.
I cannot help pointing out that there were 18 years during which, as it was in office, the right hon. Gentleman's party could have acted. Just as a matter of interest, as he seems to want to pop up at the Dispatch Box, can he tell us whether, when he was a Cabinet Minister, he banged his fist on the table at Cabinet meetings and said "I think these Select Committees should be handled differently"?

The Prime Minister: Let me deal with issues relating to modernisation. We have established a Modernisation Committee, and as a result there have been great improvements in the way in which the House can hold Government to account. Some are hardly mentioned in the Norton report, but others are referred to.
The House's control over European business has been extended to cover all aspects of the Maastricht treaty, through the scrutiny reserve. By instituting a parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall, we have secured four more Back-Bench Adjournment debates a day and one more debate of substance every week. We have debates that can be used to devote more attention to Select Committee reports. There has been a constant cry for that since the initiation of Select Committees. We have taken the steps recommended by the Modernisation Committee to improve the House's ability to scrutinise legislation.
We have taken further the process of publishing draft Bills before they are introduced. Seven Bills have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and we have undertaken to continue that process. We have taken practical steps to help Parliament to scrutinise legislation—for instance, by publishing far better explanatory notes with Bills. That is not dramatic, but it is important. We would be willing to experiment with different approaches to draft legislation. We would be far more willing than the Opposition were to experiment with the very programme motions that they want to introduce. There may well be other ways in which we can improve the House's ability to conduct its business, and when it makes sense, they should be considered.
The debate called by the Leader of the Opposition, and the points that he made—I find it extraordinary that they were the biggest points he had to make on the issue—do not address the big constitutional questions relating to the fundamental relationship between Parliament and the Executive. That is what I will now do.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister explain something about the scrutiny of European legislation? When a duly constituted Committee—the European Scrutiny Committee—recommended by a proper majority that the environmental liability directive should be debated on the Floor of the House, why did the Leader of the House, and hence the Government, ride roughshod over the Committee, and merely refer the matter to a Standing Committee?
Will the Prime Minister also explain why, for the first time since 1972, the chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee now resides with the Government rather than the Opposition, as a result of his Government's decision?

The Prime Minister: I was pretty sure we would get around to Europe.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am told that procedures were agreed by the House. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say more about that when she winds up the debate. I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that we could have debated Europe today. The Leader of the Opposition could have chosen Europe as the subject of the debate, but he did not.
I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition's statement did not address the big constitutional issues of our time. Surely the real issue is to bring power closer to people and to hold the Government to account. That is the fundamental question as between Parliament and the Executive. When we came to power, the United Kingdom was the most centralised country in the world. [Interruption.] We still had the utter democratic absurdity of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister. I want to be able to hear the Prime Minister every bit as well as I heard the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: We still had the utter democratic absurdity of the majority of one House of Parliament dominating legislation solely on the basis of hereditary right; we could sue in the European Court on the European convention on human rights, but not in our own courts; and we had no effective rules on the financing of political parties. We have made changes in each of those areas that have fundamental consequences for the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, and we have done so to bring power closer to the people and to hold Government to account.
Madam Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, forgive me. People want a much greater say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the decisions that affect their lives. They want more control, and a better balance between the central powers of the state and the rights of the citizen. They also want much more direct, immediate communication with the people who govern them. I shall give the House an example.
Five years ago, the Prime Minister's office received annually an estimated 25,000 items of correspondence from the public. Over the past years, that figure has risen to more than 500,000, which is a twentyfold increase. The public increasingly want to use and are using new technology, electronic mail and the internet for their communications with central, regional and local government. We are moving into a different world, where the procedures and traditions of the House will be viewed in a more unkind light unless we make changes to the way in which it does its business.

Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman referred to prime ministerial correspondence.

He has said on television three times that the House of Lords defeated the fox hunting Bill. I have written to the Prime Minister three times to try to get a straight answer to a straight question. Is that true or false? As he cannot answer his correspondence, perhaps he would answer that question now.

The Prime Minister: The House of Lords prevented the fox hunting Bill from proceeding. [Interruption.] It was perfectly clear that the House of Lords was not prepared to agree to it, but it will happen now, and people will be able to vote on it.

Sir George Young: Is it not the case that that Bill never reached the House of Lords? It stopped here.

The Prime Minister: It could not have got through the House of Lords. We know that, which is precisely why the Bill will be reintroduced. [Interruption.] That is absolutely right.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to when the interruptions began and he was rightly describing the increased volume of communications by electronic mail. Will he bear in mind the fact that Opposition Front-Benchers have had their resources increased by Short money, and Government Front-Benchers have demonstrably had their resources increased, given the number of special advisers, whereas ordinary Bank Benchers, who play an important constitutional role, have not had their resources increased? It is now time that each and every one of us demanded a substantial increase in our resources, so that we can check Government and meet the demands of our case loads, which have increased owing to a greater use of electronic mail.

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that those issues are important, and the House will continue to debate them. However, the issue of the relationship between the powers of the Executive and of Parliament goes wider than the procedures of the House. As a result of our desire to bring power closer to people, we introduced devolution for Scotland and Wales. The Conservatives were opposed to devolution for Scotland and Wales. Are they now in favour of it or not? We simply do not know, but they are no longer pledged to reverse it.
We have introduced the European convention on human rights to our law, so that our citizens can sue on the rights that they have in our own courts. If Conservative Front Benchers oppose that, let them say how they can want the Government held better to account at the same time as opposing people being able to sue in our courts on legislation by which this country should abide.
We are getting rid of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. What better example could there be of making our system more democratic?

Angela Smith: Several times in his speech, my right hon. Friend has commented on his surprise at the Opposition's choice of issue for the Opposition day debate. I have two suggestions for him. First, even despite the mass exodus we saw earlier, they have the most Members present ever for an Opposition debate. On issues


such as crime and housing, there are usually about three people in the Chamber. Secondly, the Opposition are trying to find a defence to explain to their voters why they have been so ineffective in the House.

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is right that the real issue between the Executive and Parliament is how we bring power closer to people. That is why we have made the constitutional changes. That is why we are allowing greater local democracy. That is why we have reintroduced democracy to London.

Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend mentioned devolution of power to Wales and Scotland. He should also mention the welcome devolution of power to the people of London and the election, for the very first time, of the people's choice as the new mayor of London.

The Prime Minister: He was indeed the choice of the people, though not my choice. However, the point that my hon. Friend makes is surely right. It was the Conservative party that abolished the Greater London council and took away the rights of Londoners—[Interruption.] Is not that more important than all the piddling points raised by the Leader of the Opposition? When it comes to the real issues, it is not about who appoints the Select Committee Chairmen or whether we turn up for two slots of 20 minutes or one of half an hour. It is about restoring democracy to this country and getting power back to people.
In Scotland, for a hundred years people have wanted a devolved Scottish Parliament. This party, in government, has delivered it. For a hundred years people have wanted a devolved Executive in Northern Ireland that is genuinely representative of all communities. We have delivered it. We gave people the choice in a referendum to make their decision and they decided for devolution, so that is what we did. Freedom of information has been introduced for the first time by this Government.
Madam Speaker, when we look—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is Mr. Deputy Speaker."] Well, at least I am consistent, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In truth, the issue of Parliament and the Executive is a serious one. However, when we boil down the recommendations that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to accept from his committee, there is the one on Select Committees and the proposal for two Prime Minister's Questions, not one. That is the sum total. We have been brought here today for this extraordinary exhibition of eccentricity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition just for those two things. Why has he done that? Because every time we come to a serious issue of policy, he falls flat on his face.
In the past few days, the Leader of the Opposition's entire economic policy has collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. His national health service policy collapsed 10 days before. His education policy would be a disaster for this country if it were ever introduced. The truth of the matter is that on not a single, serious policy question has he a serious thing to say. He is incapable once we get to the big policy questions. Madam Speaker, what is—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is Mr. Deputy Speaker."] I will get it right eventually.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is the real problem that we have in holding the Government to account? In order to hold the Government to account, we need a

Government—well, we have got one—and we need a serious Opposition. We do not have one of those. The Opposition's real complaint about holding us to account is that they are so useless, weak and feeble that in three years they have not been able to impress themselves on anybody. It could have been a serious debate but it was not, because the right hon. Gentleman has nothing serious to say.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry for having been the source of such difficulty.

Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the entire House welcomes the fact that we have made such consensual progress over the past hour to reform and improve our parliamentary systems and the role of the Executive and its relationship to Parliament as a whole. This morning, when I was leaving home and thinking about the debate, I wondered whether any practical good would come of it. I am surprised only that I even asked myself that question.

Mr. Mackinlay: We have the promise of a free vote on the Liaison Committee's report. That is now locked in.

Mr. Kennedy: Somebody is happy. That may be because the hon. Gentleman is used to being in a minority from time to time.
The difficulty is the motion. There are many good, worthy and interesting things that we need to talk and think about. The problem is that the previous Conservative Government latterly were a lousy Executive. Subsequently, the Conservatives have been a lousy Opposition. On both counts, it is difficult to take seriously any prescriptions or prognoses that they put forward relating to how we might want to improve or develop our proceedings in a more meaningful way, and they had better be more meaningful for us all.
The Prime Minister is correct when he talks about a bigger picture. There is a much more profound picture for each and every political party in this place. It is that fewer people are joining political parties and fewer are becoming involved in the business of politics. Each year, 2 million people voluntarily take out or renew membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and that is a greater number than the entire membership of every British political party put together and multiplied by some.
When we look in the mirror as a Parliament, we should consider our working practices and procedures in terms of their relevance to the outside world. Having listened to the exchanges so far, I feel that most people, if they had not already switched channels having tuned in to the debate, would be unable to comprehend what Parliament was talking about. That is the perspective from which we should be approaching these important issues, which have been dealt with so superficially by the Conservative party.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about lousy opposition, will he confirm


that his view of good opposition is a party that strives at every opportunity to agree with the Government in the hope of obtaining favours from them in future?

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman might care to consider the wholehearted support that the Liberal Democrats gave to the Labour party in Cardiff a few months ago, which led to the ousting of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and many other things too. He might like to reflect upon the fact that week on week, if we look for questions to the Prime Minister as opposed to assertions—the right hon. Gentleman should be properly held to account on the public policy of the day—I think that he gets a damned sight more from Liberal Democrat Members than from Conservative Members.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I will finish my point. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me prematurely to curtail my kind comments about the Conservative party.
It is difficult to take Conservative Members seriously when they are still prepared to subscribe to an element of the hereditary principle in another place. I do not understand how they can have credibility on parliamentary reform if they are willing to subscribe to that. They were in office for 18 years, during which the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government—a worthy society that commands all-party endorsement—made recommendations about the reform of the House. Many of us in all parties called for a debate, and strangely the Conservative Government could not find time for one. The Opposition contribution today has to be put in that historical context.

Dr. Starkey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I take him back to his remarks about the representative nature of this Parliament and turning a mirror on ourselves? I invite him to turn round and look at hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches to see how representative they are of the population when their gender is uniformly male. Is he considering doing something about that?

Mr. Kennedy: I think that at least four of my colleagues might profoundly disagree with that assessment, but the hon. Lady is correct and I am happy to repeat here what I have repeated ad infinitum on party platforms throughout the country: if any political party or Parliament is to be representative of the country, far more women have to be elected. That is a problem for the Liberal Democrats and I am endeavouring to deal with it. Any help that the hon. Lady could give would be most welcome. If she wants to swell the number of women in the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party, we have space on these Benches and would be happy for her to cross the Floor of the House.
Obviously, the Labour party has embarked on significant and historic constitutional reform in the past three years. We openly and enthusiastically subscribe to much of that reform. We have had our differences. For example, the system of proportional representation adopted for the European elections was not one that we

would have chosen, we would have given the Welsh Assembly more legislative power, and we would have given more fiscal autonomy to the Scottish Parliament. However, at least compared with what went on before, we are on a rolling programme of reform, which has to be welcome.
This debate offers a welcome opportunity, because there is so much more to do—real reform of the House of Commons and the completion of the reform of the House of Lords. With such a big majority—and with so much power and patronage at the disposal of any modern day Prime Minister—the Government must themselves check that Parliament is not being undermined and that the House is not being taken for granted.
The Liberal Democrats recommend that we move to a fixed-term system of four-year Parliaments. Surely that would rid us of the most ludicrous tradition of the lot: the fact that the person who will lead the team when the race for a general election starts is also the person who holds the starting pistol and decides when to pull the trigger. Short of a Government losing the confidence of a majority in the House, a partisan party leader should not decide when the country goes to the polls. A four-year, fixed term would be best.
Secondly, far too many people are on the payroll in the House. The Government are too big. There are too many parliamentary private secretaries and too many people are beholden to the Executive interests of the day. Not enough Members feel free to express independent interests from a Back-Bench point of view. It is telling that there is a genuinely held respect and affection in this place for individuals in all parties, some of whom are described by the press as "maverick", some of whom are called "independently minded" and some "troublemakers". The truth is that we all know that most Members do not have either the guts or the opportunity to be like that because those who sit on the Treasury Bench and who control the Executive have far more power than is healthy for the House.

Shona McIsaac: Before the right hon. Gentleman became the leader of his party, we shared many a happy moment on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. He mentioned the payroll vote. I am deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the Opposition. Does he agree that one reason for it is that they are out lining their own pockets doing other jobs? Seventy-five per cent. of Conservative Members have outside interests compared with about 15 per cent. of Members from other parties. The reason that the Opposition are so bad is that they are never here and they are interested only in lining their own pockets.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Lady makes her point well. I do not mean any disrespect to the impeccably impartial, fair-minded Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges when I say that, in my view, there were not quite as many happy moments as she seems to remember, given the detailed nature of some of the inquiries that we had to make of present and previous Members. Fixed terms would be better and so would a reduction in the size of the payroll vote.
What about the way in which we go about business as a Parliament? Today is a good example. Today, at short notice and in response to the problem of football


hooliganism—after all, it is not an issue that suddenly arrived out of the sky with Euro 2000; the problem has bedevilled English football for a number of years—we will have a rushed Second Reading of proposed legislation. Concern will be expressed in all parties, certainly from our ranks, about the draconian powers and civil libertarian implications of aspects of the Bill. If the Government get their way and are not prepared at least to meet the House of Commons halfway on aspects of it, we will complete the remaining stages with indelicate haste next week and the Bill will then go to the House of Lords for further consideration.
No hon. Member of sense, of any party, could fail to disagree that the public want something to be done about football hooliganism, and so do the rest of us. The issue is: is the detail of the Bill the correct, considered response to what is undoubtedly a problem? There will be those who argue with considerable force and persuasion that it is not.
The problem is those idiots when they go abroad. They are nothing to do with football supporters. They are just idiots and thugs, but the issue is a prime example of where pre-legislative scrutiny should be carried out by a Select Committee involving all parties, rather than the Executive of the day rushing through ill-considered measures that may not do much to solve the problem and may, as a downside, have profound civil libertarian implications, which none of us in any party would be happy with in time to come. That is where Parliament does not succeed—when it allows such a thing to happen. It is scheduled to happen later today.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, to work, this place requires members on the Government side to have a creative tension in scrutinising Government legislation? We will see tonight whether Labour Members who advocate civil liberties are prepared to demonstrate that creative tension. Without it, this place simply does not work.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. If he will forgive me for being a little partisan, because he made a fair-minded point, probably the best experts in creative tension in the House these days are members of the Conservative parliamentary party. There is no doubt about that.
The Government should surely be more accountable in relation to public expenditure. By coincidence, today the Prime Minister has come to the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and produced his annual account of the activities of the Government.

Mr. Bob Russell: The glossy figures.

Mr. Kennedy: The glossy ones, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Let us look at more graphic ones, which have coincided with the publication of the Government's annual report. The poverty figures—published today, but not, of course, published in the Government's account—show that, under Labour, the number of pensioners living in poverty has risen by 400,000. Funnily enough, those figures were sneaked out on the same day as the glossy, glitzy annual report. The fact that that was not mentioned in dispatches by the Prime Minister or by any Minister during the advance warning in interviews and in the

newspapers this morning shows how hollow is the exercise that we have observed today compared with real accountability, where the Government are questioned properly.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that many pensioners who are in poverty are entitled to the guaranteed minimum income, and that each one of us as a Member of Parliament should perhaps be doing more in our own constituency to ensure that everyone who is entitled to what the Government are making available receives it?

Mr. Kennedy: I agree that, as individual Members of Parliament, we should be doing everything possible in our constituencies to ensure that our constituents receive their due entitlements. However, in the context of today's debate, we should also be acknowledging what we are not doing sufficiently, on the Floor of the House and in Parliament generally, in calling the Executive of the day to account for the shortcomings that are revealed by such figures.
We welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has said that, on Select Committees, he will take an indulgent view of the House and allow hon. Members—heaven forbid—to make up their own minds. That is good.
Something that we could learn from the progress of devolution—more in the Scottish than in the Welsh context, because the Scottish Parliament enjoys more legislative capacity than does the National Assembly for Wales—is that the pre-legislative scrutiny process is working well. All parties in Scotland, as well as journalists and other observers and commentators, point to such scrutiny as being one of the strengths of the new system. We should learn from that system and do more to emulate it in this place.

Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, but this is the last time.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is making a serious and considered speech. He dealt with the selection of hon. Members to serve on Select Committees. The fact is that party management is needed in every legislature, whether it is the Congress or the French or German legislatures. If we did not have party management, would I as a Back Bencher receive 250 CVs saying, "Put me on the Foreign Affairs Committee"? Realistically, how would such a system be managed? Party management is part of the democratic process.

Mr. Kennedy: Obviously there has to be a degree of management or we would not reach any decision on our procedures in this place. However, I think that we all know what we are talking about: over-management and intrusive party political manipulation to suit the specific interests of the Executive of the day, of whatever political shade that Executive may be. That is the point that we are making.

Ms Abbott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I am sorry; I really have to conclude my remarks.
Liberal Democrat Members want an effective Parliament. An effective Parliament should be neither excessively obstructive nor excessively subservient. The opportunities available to the Opposition and to Back Benchers rest largely with obstruction. The opportunities available to those who are subservient to the interests of the Government of the day rest largely with having to toady and to follow the party and the Executive line.
There is a genuine debate to be had here. I pay tribute to the report from the Conservative party and from Philip Norton, who is one of the most distinguished academics in the land. I have known and worked with him over a number of years, and I respect him very much indeed. He has made an intelligent and a thoughtful contribution that, with the work of the Modernisation Committee, should provide the basis for a rational, all-party discussion. However, the Conservative leadership does not seem to be making its contribution in the House in accordance with that report from the Conservative party. Frankly, the Conservatives are promoting only superficial self-interest, rather than the substantial, serious discussion that we all recognise that we need.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I believe that the Prime Minister was quite right when he said that not everyone in the pubs and clubs in our constituencies are talking about the issues that we are debating. However, I fear that he was quite wrong when he said that it is more important to debate the important, bread-and-butter issues of jobs, health and education than to debate the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. That issue is, and has always been, fundamental to this place and to our role as a Parliament.
In so many debates in recent years, in this place and elsewhere, we have lacked historical perspective, but one does not have to be a great historian to see that the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, whether that Executive is the monarchy or the elected Government of the day, has been central to every political debate for the past 800 years. The particulars may change, as may the balance and the issues, but the general truth is always the same: the tension between the Executive and the democratic will of the country, whether it is expressed formally through Parliament or through the people, has always been, and will remain, the big political issue.
I congratulate the Opposition on choosing the subject of today's debate. It is an extremely important topic that we do not debate enough.

Mr. Michael Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for the reasons that he has just given, the issue is fundamental to the bread-and-butter issues of jobs, schools and hospitals that the Prime Minister said that we should be debating? Does not the Prime Minister's view on those matters betray his complete lack of understanding that the only way in which we can safeguard jobs, schools and hospitals is to make the Government accountable to the House of Commons?

Mr. Fisher: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would disagree with the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention.

We all recognise that Parliament and the Government have to be scrutinised, held to account and rigorously questioned and challenged on everything in order to get the best out of any Government as much as to represent our constituents.

Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend makes a point about opportunities for Back Benchers vigorously to question Ministers. How does he square that with the Conservative record of attendance on Select Committees? Only 34 per cent. of Conservative Back-Bench Members bothered to attend the Select Committee on Education and Employment; only 43 per cent. bothered to attend the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and fewer than 50 per cent. bothered to attend the Select Committee on Agriculture. Is it not a case of Back Benchers who want to hold the Government to account simply not bothering to turn up to those parliamentary institutions?

Mr. Fisher: Of course in order to participate in any democratic debate it is first necessary to be there, so I agree with my hon. Friend about that. However, because today's debate is so central, we do not serve it well by making it a trivial party political occasion. As the Liaison Committee report that is at the centre of this debate illustrates, because it is all-party and extremely moderately and intelligently worded it ought to be an issue that goes way beyond parties because of what we have in common as parliamentarians in our attitude to ourselves, to our constituents and to the Executive. I know from right hon. and hon. Members representing all parties that that is the case.
Although I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the Opposition in his sharp questioning and his ready wit, I feel that he slightly misjudged his speech today. His aggressive tone alienated the House when much of what he had to say in praise of the Liaison Committee report was understood and agreed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is not in his place, said, there is general consensus on many of the points that the Leader of the Opposition made. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman slightly minimised his support for the Liaison Committee report and that was a pity because it is such a good report that we ought to take it seriously. We need a measured, steady and calm debate on that report, and I hope that we will have such a debate later this year.
One of the most interesting and optimistic moments this afternoon was when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we will have a free vote on the report. It will therefore not require courage for Labour Members to support what is an excellent report; it will simply require good sense.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the Prime Minister described the proposals in the Liaison Committee report as piddling? Does he not think that that is an insult to the 30-odd Select Committee Chairmen who wrote that report?

Mr. Fisher: I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that, and I do not think that he said it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has quietly pointed out to me that it is the convention of the House that there is a free vote on all House of Commons matters, so perhaps what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about a free vote was less sensational than I thought.
However, I was happy to be reassured that there was to be a free vote, and I hope that all hon. Members will by then have read and considered the Liaison Committee report. What is sad is that the members of the media, who are so important in holding the Government to account and relating hon. Members to our constituents, have almost totally failed to report, comment on or grasp the significance of the report. The issue is a fundamental one, and it is one of the most important reports to emerge during this Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are free votes, and free votes? Is not what we want an assurance from the Leader of the House that the vote later tonight will be a true free vote, in which all hon. Members will be able to vote freely, regardless of whether they are members of the Administration?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Huh!

Mr. Fisher: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) will have heard the enormously expressive monosyllable emitted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It made what she means by a free vote very clear.

Mrs. Beckett: Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I made the noise that I made because it has been crystal clear over recent weeks that many Conservative Members are adamantly and fundamentally opposed to what my hon. Friend has rightly described as the profound recommendations in the Liaison Committee report, and to their implications. The noise that I made was meant to indicate scepticism as to whether they will enjoy a free vote.

Mr. Fisher: It is refreshing and unusual to debate the nuances of ejaculations and exclamations. My right hon. Friend made an initial noise that was every bit as eloquent as her explanation, and both were extremely useful.
I do not want to delay the House, and I hope that many hon. Members will want to contribute to this important debate. As I said, I consider the Liaison Committee's report to be truly excellent. It is conspicuous for its restraint and modesty. Some people might call it rather cautious and conservative, but that is often necessary in order to maximise all-party support for a Select Committee report.
Moreover, I understand that there will be an opportunity later this session to debate the report in full. I agree with almost every word of it, and believe that it will strengthen Select Committee procedures. Its recommendations on selection, remits and responses from Government are wise and sane. They have been needed since the changes of the 1970s to the departmental nature of Select Committees.
I welcome the report. I hope that it will be debated, and that it will get the full approval of the House and the Government.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend is making an important and brave speech. Does he agree that the differences in opinion about the report stem from whether hon. Members

see themselves solely as ambassadors for party and constituency, or whether they take seriously their role in holding the Government to account in this Chamber?

Mr. Fisher: That question goes to the heart of the role of Members of Parliament. Most of us have been party members for 20, 30 or 40 years. We love our parties, which are rooted in our lives. Sometimes, the tension between the desire to be loyal to party and constituents and what we believe to be politically and ethically correct can be awkward and unhappy.
Those are permanent dilemmas, but they are not often very difficult to resolve. No one need be sorry that we have to grapple with such prickly and uncomfortable matters. They are part of our lives, and it is healthy for hon. Members to be both party and constituency politicians, and people with independent minds. We have to balance such things, even though we do not always do so very happily or to our credit.
I want to mention two other areas. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said that the key elements of this debate were the degree of centralised power that any Government have and the degree of accountability. A third, related, matter is the checks and balances that exist structurally inside Parliament and in our detailed work.
My right hon. Friend said that, when we came into Government, this was a centralised country. It had increasingly become so. We are all reasonable enough to see that there are good reasons why Governments over the past 50 years have sought to take more power to themselves. As government becomes more complicated in a complicated world, it is tempting for a Government to imagine that they will best address its problems with more central power.
The last Government were the same. There was a movement towards greater control by the Executive. Nobody could have exemplified that better than the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Sometimes she used it well, and sometimes she used it badly, but there was a drawing in to the centre and I am sure that she believed that she was behaving honourably.
I think that there has been a drawing in to the centre under the present Government, probably for exactly the same reasons. Whatever we try to do on non-governmental organisations, there is a tendency for them to increase. There is an understandable but undesirable movement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have reminded him earlier that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. With interventions, the hon. Gentleman has had considerably more time.

Mr. John Major: This was beginning to turn into a rather partisan debate. It is fortunate that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) moved away from that, because the debate affects all of us. It is essentially about the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. Many hon. Members, not only sitting on the Conservative Benches, believe that over a long period—I do not mean simply in this Parliament—the Executive have been getting stronger and


the Commons has been getting weaker. That trend has now reached a stage where it should be reversed, and that is what the debate essentially is about.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Prime Minister took time out of the debate at the beginning of the afternoon for a statement that could just as easily have been made at the beginning of next week to permit more hon. Members to express their views on the procedures of the Commons. It was a foolish thing to do.
I am leaving the House at the general election, so I have no further ambitions here. There is nothing that the Prime Minister, or for that matter my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, can offer me that I wish to have. That puts me in an excellent position to express some home truths, and I intend to do so for the good of the House and for no other purpose.
The House of Commons has been a very large part of my life. I always wished to come here, and I have loved every moment—or, to be strictly honest, nearly every moment. As I prepare to leave the House I wish to see it thrive, because, for all its shortcomings, it remains the best and least corrupt system of government that I have ever seen.
Yet today this House and those of us who are privileged to be sent here to serve in it are held in less regard by our electors than I can ever recall. That is not true of Members of Parliament individually. There is still a great deal of affection for them in their constituencies. But it is true of Members of Parliament as a body and of the House as a whole. We are not popular out there, and that long-term trend has been worsening.
That must be changed. I do not believe that it will be changed if the House is perceived by the electorate to be as putty in the hands of any Government with a secure majority and a good whipping system. It is in the interests of the institution of Parliament itself that we should have reforms to begin to reverse that perception and that reality.

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I have 10 minutes, and there is a great deal that I wish to say.
The main reform that we need is to change the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, which has become unbalanced over the past 20 or 25 years.
I believe that we must begin to change the perception that any Government with a large majority and an efficient Whips Office means a five-year elected dictatorship. To do so, the House must have more power, Back Benchers must have more power and the Government must have less power. I am aware that I might well have done more about that, and I am prepared to accept the blame, but we must now look at the future of the House.

Mr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: I have told the hon. Gentleman why I will not give way to him. I doubt whether he has anything constructive to offer, and I intend to proceed.

Mr. Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the right

hon. Gentleman, but could you, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, clarify that interventions are to be added on to the 10 minutes, thus enabling right hon. and hon. Members to take interventions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is correct that injury time is added on when interventions are taken, but in a time-limited debate, of course, interventions are part of the total time. It still remains the prerogative of the hon. Member who has the Floor as to whether or not he takes any or all interventions.

Mr. Major: If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wishes, I will take his intervention, but then I will take no more for this reason, and this reason only—I have a great deal that I wish to say and I believe that many other right hon. and hon. Members have too.

Mr. Miller: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I appreciate the context of his opening remarks. He said that we needed to reverse the process. Will he give us an indication of what period in history he would want it reversed to, so that we have an idea of when he believes the balance was correct?

Mr. Major: I said a moment ago that this has been a long-term process. I think that it has happened over the past 30 or 40 years, and I am not making a case against this particular Government.
Many years ago, under a different Government, Lord Pym warned of the dangers of too large a majority. I think that we have seen that vividly demonstrated in this Parliament. Too much legislation is pushed through, too much of it poorly considered. We have had twice as many timetable motions of one sort or another in this Parliament as between 1990 and 1997.
Parliament is often ignored—it is bypassed. As Cabinet Government declines, special advisers proliferate. Statements in the House too often follow public announcements of policy rather than preceding them. Even the Prime Minister—who courteously told me that he has to be elsewhere now—went to Germany to announce his policy on hooligans and cashpoints rather than doing so in this House or in this country.
The Government press machine has been almost wholly politicised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is not in his seat at the moment, for tabling questions that reveal the scale and extent of that. No. 10 is being strengthened as the House is effectively being weakened.
I think that some of the proposals on modernisation are welcome, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on those—others I think are potty. However, the overall balance of those proposals threatens to turn the Commons into an irrelevance, with even the weapon of delay now to be stolen from the Opposition. That is a wretched situation. It may suit the Government, but Labour Back Benchers will not always be on the Government Benches.
It was a bad start to this Parliament when the Prime Minister decided that Prime Minister's Question Time should take place once a week, not twice. There was no consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. I know—I was the Leader of the Opposition. There was no


consultation with the leader of the Liberal Democrats or the other parties. The Prime Minister rang me up and told me what he had unilaterally decided about how and when he would present himself to this House for accountability. He should have consulted on such a change and the House should have voted on it, but it was imposed on the House. Taking questions once a week for 30 minutes is far less taxing, believe me, than taking them twice a week for 15 minutes, when contemporary events can be raised.
That has had a secondary malign effect. More often than not, once Prime Minister's Question Time is over on a Wednesday, the House is nearly deserted, The Marie Celeste was crowded compared with this House on many Thursdays and Fridays when there is no special business, as there is today.
Lord Norton says that Prime Minister's Question Time should be twice a week for 30 minutes. Good for Lord Norton—I am just glad that I will not be doing it. Two sessions a week of 15 minutes is enough. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says that he will in due course do two sessions of 20 minutes. Well, good for him. As it might have been said in "Yes, Prime Minister", that is a very courageous decision by my right hon. Friend.
The outcome of this debate should not just be that the Government outvote the Opposition. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the House should listen; they should set up consultations with Opposition parties and Back Benchers to consider changes.
In the circumstances that have developed over the years, more powerful Select Committees have become desirable. I would favour paying their Chairmen and allowing the House to elect their Chairmen and membership. If we can provide an alternative parliamentary career to parliamentarians, then Parliament will be strengthened instead of the Executive. That is the right direction.
I favour the announcement of the parliamentary programme for several years; the proposals should face pre-legislative scrutiny, with evidence taken in public. Many of the deficiencies in proposed legislation could thus be dealt with at an early stage. To persuade the Government to accept that suggestion, I offer the example of the poll tax. Under such a system, it would never have emerged in the form it took—nor would much other legislation.
We need such reforms. I would establish a Standing Committee of both Houses to consider constitutional reform. Before a Government just decide on such a matter, let that Committee examine it and take evidence. I would favour the Prime Minister breaking with past tradition and attending Select Committees to answer questions in a more clement atmosphere than that of Prime Minister's Question Time in the House.
The problems did not all arise during this Parliament—that is not my case—but the style of the Labour Government and the scale of their majority have brought them into sharp relief and worsened them. When the Government were elected, they had unprecedented good will, a huge majority, a growing economy, low inflation and falling unemployment; and the fiscal position was returning to balance—although the Chancellor does not like to admit it. The Government had a golden opportunity. However, compared with the achievements of Parliament between 1945 and 1950, under the Attlee Government, or even between 1983 and 1987, under the Government of my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, that opportunity has been squandered.
The Prime Minister can still retrieve the situation. Let him consult all the Opposition parties and his Back Benchers on reforms to strengthen the House. Let him sack the spin doctors, who so mislead, and the political press officers who are a stain on Parliament's traditional procedures. Let him get rid of the advisers who have often become more influential than his Ministers. Let him instruct his Ministers that Parliament—this House—must be the first to be told of his policy developments. Let him begin to restore to the House of Commons the power that it has lost. For if he will not do so, it will be done for him—either in this or in another Parliament. If he will not do it, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will do it for him, but whoever does it, the sooner it is done, the better.

Helen Jackson: The opening speech of this debate represented the strangest dichotomy that I have ever heard in Parliament. The Opposition called the debate in order to talk about reforming Parliament and us as parliamentarians. However, the speech was presented in a wholly adversarial manner.
There was no mention of the Jopling reforms which took place during the previous Parliament. There was no mention of the excellent efforts made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—to try to achieve consensus on what a modern Parliament might look like. The approach to what should have been a useful debate was wholly adversarial. But that is only one element of our work.
As parliamentarians, we learn quickly that our job is multi-faceted. It is not one job, but at least four. First, we are advocates for our constituents, who want us to solve their problems. That constituency link and the process whereby we are elected goes deep into our democracy. From the day we are elected, we sink part of the party rosette we wear, because we have become representatives of all our constituents. We start to play a consensual and scrutinising role that is not always dominated by party.
Secondly, we are legislators, because we legislate and we scrutinise legislation. In that role, we act as members of the Government, members of the Opposition or members of a Select Committee. Thirdly, we use our experience to develop policy within our parties and in Parliament. Finally—whether we like or not—we are public figures, and we talk about the issues in the media.
I suspect that like every other Member of the House, I have been besieged in the past few weeks by a plethora of reports and questionnaires asking us to list exactly what we do as Members of Parliament, how long we spend doing it and what we think is important. We are asked to list in order of priorities—but I will not do that, because every element of the job informs the other elements: they interrelate with each other, so adversarial politics interrelates with the consensual politics that we are trying to move towards in a modern Parliament.
In the previous Parliament, when majorities were tight and the election was approaching, important Select Committee visits often gave way to crucial votes. Our party whip is sent to us on Friday telling us when we must be here the following week to carry out our party role.
I now want to say something unusual that I hope will not be misinterpreted. Whips are not supposed to make speeches, but I want to portray a nightmare scenario in which more than 600 Members all think they know best about everything and are able to say exactly what they like about every national or local issue. That would result in chaos, and it is down to our party managers to win consensus for the ideas on which we are legislating, to accept and deal with opposition when it occurs both within a party and between parties, and to win votes for a party's policy in the House.
That job is performed by people who can never speak in the House but, on the whole, I think they do it very well. The job means that they must know a great deal about our personal lives and the difficulties that we may face. They are—and this is a serious point—the right people to decide who should serve on Select Committees and other Committees. They should keep that role and carry it out in a correct and sensible fashion. I do not agree with the proposals that have been made by Philip Norton and in the Liaison Committee report.
I am interested in the relationship between consensual and adversarial politics. In the previous Parliament, I was chairman of the all-party water group, but I made very party political speeches on that subject in the House. However, because I was interested in that relationship, I am pleased to have been a member of the Modernisation Committee for the past three years. Although we may not get a chance to debate the Committee's work before the end of July, we should be able to debate it before the end of the Session.
The Committee's work was going along fine. It had built on the Jopling report and talked seriously about how we should behave in a modern Parliament. It had recognised that people want certainty about their hours and their time and it had recognised the frustrations felt, in particular, by many younger and newer Members at having to sit through the night for no apparent reason and without debating the issues properly.
Legislation can be badly drafted, and we can spend hours allowing the Government to get their act together by tabling the right amendments to Bills. Government members of the Committee have brought to it our experience of many years in opposition. That experience of the need for certainty of timing and better organisation of legislation can play into the hands of the Opposition more than the Government, who will have constraints placed upon them. The Government must get their legislation right, propose draft legislation and put it before scrutiny Committees. At that point, we must accept that we need to programme and timetable legislation and deal with it sensibly.
When we put forward the reforms, I was disappointed that the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), was constrained and told that the Opposition would have to make it an adversarial debate; so here we are, debating in the stupid way demonstrated in the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition issues on which all of us should agree.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is clearly central to our democratic process and therefore of interest to every hon. Member. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), with whom I served on the Modernisation Committee. The House has had the benefit of the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who certainly told it like it was.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for addressing the issue as he did today. He caused some hackles to rise, but these are important issues. However, he also proposed a series of practical policy measures that could go some way to restoring the balance between Parliament and the Executive.
There is always a tension between Parliament and the Executive. However, there is something different about this Government's attitude. At the heart of their attitude to Parliament seems to be a view—quoted by my right hon. Friend—encapsulated by the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), early in the life of this Parliament and reported in The Guardian in March 1998. He said:
It may be that the age of pure representative democracy is…coming to an end.
He went on to express his belief that as people today want to become more involved, there were other means of representation that could take the place of representative democracy. He cited
plebiscites, focus groups, lobbies, citizens' movements, the Internet.
We had a reference to the internet as a means of democratic change from the Prime Minister today.
If we take it that the view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—it was confirmed by the Prime Minister today—informs the Government's thinking on the use and function of Parliament, it becomes clear that they regard Parliament as another means of communication. They see Parliament as slow moving, outdated and even recalcitrant at times, but to be put alongside the growing mountains of glossy literature from every Department of State, the use of the "Today" programme for Government announcements—not "Newsnight", though, as that can be recalcitrant too—stage-managed press conferences and people's panels, and the faux consultations and fudged figures that have become, sadly, the hallmarks of a Government who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, had a golden opportunity at the beginning of this Parliament. Sadly, their most lasting legacy may turn out to be that they taught the British people the meaning of the term "spin doctor".
That is the problem. There is an essential difference between Parliament and the internet, people's panels and the other examples cited by the Prime Minister, who gave no sign of understanding Parliament's meaning and purpose, nor of the fundamental fact that only Parliament, through the ballot box, can give legitimacy to a Government's actions, as well as scrutinise what they do, and that only through Parliament can the Government be held to account.
I recommend to the House the document on Parliament's scrutiny role produced by a Hansard Society commission last December, which says:
Parliament performs a number of roles in British democracy. Parliament makes the law and decides on how much the government can raise through taxation. Crucially, it also creates and sustains the government. Parliament provides the vital link between the electorate and government. Governments are accountable to the people through general elections… This form of accountability is generally termed Parliament's scrutiny role. Parliament performs this role by obtaining and publicising information about the government's performance and future plans. On the basis of that information, Parliament and others form a judgement as to whether the government is discharging its mandate effectively.
The commission goes on to define the role of government in relation to Parliament, and says:
Effective scrutiny relies not only on the role of Parliament and MPs, but also on the role of government. The government has a duty to account for its policies, decisions and actions.
None of that means that Parliament cannot be reformed, nor that it should not be changed to ensure that it performs its role more effectively. The Government came to power promising that they would make the proceedings of the House of Commons more open and comprehensible to the public, and promised their new Members that they would make the workings of the House more women and family friendly. On the second score, some Labour Back Benchers have accused the Government of selling them a pup.
The Modernisation Committee has made sensible reforms that build on the solid work of the previous Government and include the revised, clearer Order Paper, clear explanatory notes to Bills, greater flexibility for the Speaker in the conduct of debates, and important moves on the scrutiny of European Union legislation. Those positive steps will improve the functioning of the legislative machine. The introduction of debates in Westminster Hall, criticised by some as sidelining the issues raised there, means that issues that are not directly concerned with the legislative programme can be examined in a slightly different atmosphere which, personally, I welcome.
In its document, the Hansard Society commission points out, pertinently, that other aspects of Government policy are affecting the role of the Parliament, but that the Government give no indication that they have taken an overall view of the impact of their policies on the democratic role of the House. The commission says:
The structure of Government, and the context within which it operates, has changed enormously… The increased use of executive agencies by central government, devolution
and
the growing influence of the courts, the extension of EU involvement
have all had an impact on the influence of Westminster. The Modernisation Committee said of Scottish and Welsh devolution:
We hope that the Government will not be overtaken by events and that when the pace of reform slackens, it will be found that all the separately constructed pieces of the jigsaw will fit together.
From today's showing and from what the Prime Minister said, I am not certain that that message has got home to the Government, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will address that particular point in her winding-up

speech. Like me, she will have read an article by Peter Riddell in The Times on March 3, which stated:
What ministers really fail to address is the dynamic nature of their programme. They treat each individual Bill like an item to be ticked off on a check list. But there are loose ends: not just issues which have yet to be resolved, like electoral reform, but also the consequences of measures already enacted.
There is still time for the Government to correct that impression, but the implication seems to be that Ministers are not concerned about the role of Parliament, the fact that only Parliament can legitimise their actions and that through it they are held accountable. If they were concerned, they would be prepared to take an overall look at the cumulative effect of all of their policies on devolution, the House of Lords and regional arrangements, and to assess the effects on parliamentary accountability.
For the benefit of the House, the Government should also compute the effect of their dispersal of power to unelected, unaccountable bodies. Since they came to power, they have created 300 unelected, unaccountable taskforces. There has been a proliferation of quangos—the Government have created 500—and there has been an unprecedented number of party political appointments to public bodies.
I conclude with a warning to the Government. They, like the rest of society, will have noted that people have less and less time to take an interest in the political process. People have less time to read leader articles in newspapers and other comment on the political process. However, the solution is not to dumb down the process, and it is certainly not to ignore it.
The Government might like to heed the message of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is not in his place, and who said in an interview in The House Magazine in April:
I do think we are now in a political society where we're managed, where democracy really is about being represented. There's all the difference in the world between being a representative of your constituency, and your convictions, and being a sub-agent of the Millbank Tower Corporation…
We should all agree with that.
One of the many characteristics that differentiates British life from many other societies is the thread of voluntary democratic involvement that runs right through it. People in this country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Lady has run out of time.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: This is a very serious topic, but I am afraid that its consideration was not helped by the tone or content of the opening speech. I listened with disbelief to the Leader of the Opposition as he forgot everything that the Conservative Government had done during 18 years in power. As we all know, they were the most centralising Government in British history, who denied a Parliament to the Scottish people and concentrated power in the Executive in an unprecedented way.
When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government, he was not interested in any of the reforms that he put forward today. We know that the prospect of a long period in opposition concentrates people's minds, but, as we learned in an intervention by my hon. Friend


the Member for Watford (Ms Ward), it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on these matters even since last year. The Conservatives' opportunism was transparent for all to see today.
As the Prime Minister said, holding the Government to account is central to democracy, but that task requires a serious Opposition. The killer question came from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who asked why Conservative Members do not attend Select Committees. If they were seriously interested in holding the Government to account, that is the main forum that they would use to perform that task. The Leader of the Opposition was unable to answer that question.
The Liaison Committee report demands serious consideration, and I was pleased by the Prime Minister's commitment to give a free vote on that. I am certainly minded to support the Committee's approach, and I think that its analysis of many of the problems is correct, although I am not sure that it has hit on the correct solution for selecting members of Select Committees. There are problems with the Whips doing that, but equally there are problems with the suggested alternative of giving the task to three of the great and the good in the House.

Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman asked why some of us do not attend Select Committees as frequently as we should. One reason is that we have other duties in the House, owing to the disproportionate representation on that side of the House compared with this side. For example, I had to choose whether, next week, I would attend a Select Committee or chair the meeting of another Committee of the House. Many of us have responsibilities on the Chairmen's Panel, and I am a trustee of the pension fund. I have to choose which meetings to attend.

Mr. Chisholm: Clearly, each individual may have a good reason for not attending on a particular occasion, but that does not explain the horrific attendance figures read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) probably does explain the attendance figures. My record of attendance at the Select Committee of which I am a member has been raised by several hon. Members. The vast majority of the occasions on which I could not attend occurred because I was simultaneously expected to attend the Standing Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

Mr. Chisholm: I am told that the hon. Gentleman attended seven of the 36 sittings of the Select Committee. Perhaps the Standing Committee explains part of that, but I find it difficult to believe that one Standing Committee explains the figures entirely.
Select Committees show the House working at its best. I am also a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and the Committee system that we have there shows that Parliament working at its best, too. One recommendation in the Liaison Committee report—namely, the emphasis on the early scrutiny of legislation by a Committee that can call witnesses—is extremely important. That has just

begun for certain Bills in the Westminster Parliament; it is done routinely with all Bills in the Scottish Parliament. That is one feature of the Liaison Committee report that will lead to more effective legislation.
At the heart of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition was an attack on the report of the Modernisation Committee. That is a serious matter, which will require a vote in the near future. Once again, it showed the Conservative Opposition missing the important aspects of genuine scrutiny and opposition, and instead defending an unacceptable and outdated practice in the House—the holding of debates at a ridiculous hour in the middle of the night.
The Leader of the Opposition omitted to mention that one of the recommendations in the Modernisation Committee report is that there should be a reduction in the number of late Government amendments.
We were told that the right hon. Gentleman supported the programming of Bills a year ago. The recommendations of the Modernisation Committee for programming will enable Back Benchers to determine which parts of Bills they want to spend the most time on. Sensible programming is far better than trying to scrutinise a Bill in the middle of the night.
I am now more used to the practice of the Scottish Parliament. When I come down to Westminster, hear hon. Members making speeches of an hour or more at 2 o'clock in the morning, and try to listen to the content of such speeches, I cannot justify that to my constituents as a feature of modern parliamentary democracy.
In general, I support the limitation of speeches to 10 minutes in most cases. If an hon. Member cannot make the main points of his argument in 10 minutes, it is likely that he has very little to say. I certainly support programming and time-limited speeches. The proposals from the Modernisation Committee are a modest attempt to introduce this Parliament to a more modern way of conducting parliamentary procedure.
I would go further. I would prefer the parliamentary day to start earlier and end earlier, but that is not what is proposed. I do not see how any Opposition Member can seriously object to a proposal that would allow debate after 10 pm, but that would ensure that hon. Members are not kept at the House unnecessarily in order to vote at that time.
The Scottish Parliament's hours, which try to follow more normal working hours, have been a great success. I am committed to driving forward the agenda of family friendly employment, and I do not see why that should not apply to politicians as well. We have managed to attract to the Scottish Parliament a much wider spectrum of the public, and a particular achievement is the fact that women constitute 50 per cent. of the Labour party's representation. That may not have happened if we had not had those hours.
Given the necessary reform of this place, we heard a very conservative speech from the Leader of the Opposition. Let us do more to strengthen Select Committees, but let us not defend the indefensible, in the form of debates in the middle of the night.

4 pm

Mr. David Davis: It is a privilege to speak in this debate. Several good speeches have been made already, particularly those of the


hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my right hon. Friends. However, I regret the Prime Minister's comment—I think that he used the word "piddling"—on this subject, not because economics, crime, education, health are unimportant, but because what we do here and the relationship between the Executive and the House of Commons dictates the effectiveness with which the Government deliver their policies to our citizens. That is one of the reasons why, under all parties, this country has had some of the best Governments in the world for the past century. His comment showed a misunderstanding of the issue.
The marginalisation of Parliament is not new, and no one should pretend that it is confined to this Government. I suspect that it goes back five decades, but it has accelerated recently. Again, some of that is not directly related to the matters for which the Government are being attacked. For example, devolution is bound to have an effect and, to some extent, to take powers away from this Parliament. It was not necessary to remove all those powers.
Each year, we approve £14 billion, or thereabouts, of expenditure for the Scottish Parliament, but we do not know, and are unable to ask, what it is spent on or how effectively it is spent. The Treasury was given the right to ask, under a specific section of the Scotland Act 1998, at the same time as the right was taken away from the House of Commons. Some of those measures were necessary, some were not, and they were the direct result of centralising effect of the Executive.
Similarly, the European Union inevitably takes powers away from Parliament. Membership of the EU effectively implies that, but there is also a cascade of legislation with which Parliament, as it is now constituted, is simply not capable of dealing. We must deal with that matter.
There are real political differences between the two sides of the House, especially about the centralisation of the Executive in No. 10. The balance has changed on matters of party discipline and because of the sheer size of the Government's majority. All of that is convenient to the Government of the day; it is convenient to any Government of any day. I suspect that similar trends occurred when Margaret Thatcher had a majority of more than 140.
The guillotines and timetable motions are a symptom and should not be discounted. I speak as a Back Bencher, not a Front Bencher, and I do not agree with such things. There have been as many guillotines and timetable motions in the past three years as in the previous 10 years when I was a Member of Parliament. They are serious symptoms of a serious malaise.
Such problems are reinforced by the managerialism of modern politics and, in many ways, by the attempt to escape ideology and the clashes that occur across the Floor of the House. Those interested in modernisation, some of whose proposals are very sensible, have a tendency to view the clashes in the Chamber as undignified and perhaps not grown up. [Interruption.] Indeed, to an extent, that reflects what television and radio lead the public to believe. As a result, many debates are deflected to the more consensual forums of Westminster Hall and the Select Committees. Of course they fulfil a useful function, but we should not forget the vital function of the Chamber.
Speaker—now Lord—Weatherill was fond of saying that debates in the Chamber were the passionate but peaceful British alternative to civil war. He understood the importance of such confrontations. He meant that the Chamber is where we express passionate views on vital issues. After all, the Prime Minister rightly referred to health. There are 10,000 more deaths in this country than there should be, so we should be passionate about people's health. It is vital that we argue about it and test each other. Such confrontation is the most effective test of ideas invented by man. The Chamber is more effective as a test of those ideas than all the consensual, semi-circular Chambers towards which we are often encouraged to veer. If hon. Members want an example, they should look back to legislation passed by bipartisan consensus. The most obvious is the Child Support Act 1991, which was not properly scrutinised as it was treated as a bipartisan measure in its first stages. We all know the result.
The Chamber is also important to the high level of honesty in British politics to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the previous Prime Minister, referred. The Public Accounts Committee and other bodies in the House contribute to that and have done so for the past 130 years, but the challenge of the Chamber is the best test of character for those who represent the people.

Mr. David Rendel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davis: Briefly, as I have only 10 minutes.

Mr. Rendel: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the PAC. I hope that he will come to the point that the powers of the PAC and of the National Audit Office have been reduced over the past few years. I also hope that he agrees that the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were disappointing because neither guaranteed that all public expenditure will come under the remit of the NAO and the PAC.

Mr. Davis: I shall do more, and tell the hon. Gentleman that we have just scored a victory in the other place that will give the NAO access to all money spent by the Government wherever the Government have oversight. That victory marks the route.
Quintessentially, the Chamber represents defence of liberty, which is why it should not submit to measures that dissolve its powers. We can go back to the American war of independence to find Members of the Houses of Parliament who defended the rights of people rebelling against the Crown. As we shall see this evening when we hold a Second Reading debate in which the defence of liberty will be an important consideration, the Chamber is in every sense a valuable institution.
Norton and the Hansard Society have their views on these matters, and Norton suggests that we improve Question Time to reinforce the Chamber. Reinforcing the Chamber is a good idea—a priority—and we could stop some of the problems of yah-boo politics by allowing the Member who asks a question the last supplementary or by making questions more closed, but longer. That would assist the Chamber, as would giving more time to Prime Minister's questions. The Government started well on the


reform represented by draft legislation, and I hope that there will be more of it, but I also hope that they will take more notice of the pre-legislative phase. The Freedom of Information Bill is not a wonderful outcome because not enough notice was taken of pre-legislative discussions.
An aspect on which we should focus to improve the effectiveness of the Chamber is the right to control our own business. We often fail to recognise that the Executive dominates business and decides how much time a debate will receive, which is unusual in the western world. Norton makes proposals, but there are others. We should have an arrangement that allows the House to decide on a partisan basis how to deliver its business.
Perhaps we should have rules that protect the House from Government meddling. In the past decade, I have changed my mind about the importance of this country depending on convention, as it is apparent that the House and our democratic system become vulnerable when a Government are willing to break conventions. An overmighty Executive is dangerous when faced only by the barrier of convention. As a result, I would veer towards much more structured defences of the House.
A second priority is the reinforcement of Back Benchers. Norton recommends that money should go to the parliamentary Labour party, the 1922 Committee and the Liberal equivalent, whatever it is, to provide more resources for Back Benchers. I disagree. No organisation—be it the 1922 Committee, the PLP or whatever—can reflect the views of Back Benchers. I am sure that battles will be going on in the PLP over this issue right now. That proposal is not the right way forward. We should give more resources to our Back Benchers. Look elsewhere in the world: Congress and other legislatures dedicate serious resources to supporting Back Benchers.
I shall not have time to discuss issues relating to the Public Accounts Committee and estimates procedures, but I will say this: given that the first function of the House is control of supply for the Government, our estimates procedure is a disgrace. We should reform it radically and soon. We should also have a parliamentary investigating officer, so that next time the Foreign Affairs Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must now call the next speaker.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), I was very disappointed by the tone of what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Conservatives current line on parliamentary reform strikes me as unnecessarily partisan and deeply hypocritical, and I think that it misses the point.
The Conservative approach seems to confuse the quantity of debate with the quality. Moreover, a significant number of Conservative Members consistently rubbish proposals that would actually make Members of Parliament, and thus Parliament, more effective. They tend to support a pretence of scrutiny that approximates to the behaviour that occurs in the Oxford and Cambridge

Unions, rather than what is appropriate to a grown-up Parliament. I think I can say that, as a life member of the Oxford Union.

Mr. St. Aubyn: If the hon. Lady is to take the power of delay away from Opposition Members, what power will she give them in its place?

Dr. Starkey: I am afraid that it is not in my power to give the Opposition the weapon that they require. What they require are effective arguments, well prosecuted, which genuinely challenge the Government's view. Delay does not do that.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Dr. Starkey: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He must restrain his impatience.
We have heard an attack on Prime Minister's Question Time. As one of my colleagues pointed out, twice 15 minutes is 30 minutes. I think that if the Opposition were any good at all, they would hold the Prime Minister to account much more effectively in a 30-minute session than in two 15-minute sessions, in which it would be much easier for a Prime Minister to avoid scrutiny.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend may not have read an article in yesterday's Daily Express in which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that depriving the Opposition of two weekly sessions meant that they could not dictate the newspaper headlines on two days a week. That is the quality of the Opposition's argument in favour of two slots.

Dr. Starkey: Indeed.
Like other Members, I believe that time limits on speeches and effective programming of debates lead to hugely better discussion. Such measures force speakers for both the Opposition and the Government to concentrate on the essence of their arguments, and to present those arguments clearly and succinctly.
I can illustrate what happens when we engage in debate for the sake of debate by referring to Hansard reports of debates that we had a week or two ago about a number of Bills, including the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. During our debate on that Bill, astonishing reams of irrelevant rubbish were produced about, for example, the basics of e-mail. There were extensive quotations from earlier debates that had not made much sense on the first occasion, and were certainly not improved by repetition.
There was, however, an interesting intervention about the sexuality of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I will save his blushes by adding that it was said that he was heterosexual, but a parliamentary virgin. There was another interesting debate, too, about intimate body searches. Several Opposition Members made speeches that digressed into the history of Parliament, and there was an absorbing discussion of the knights of Shropshire. Apparently, in the 1240s they scrutinised legislation line by line. I must say that, given the level of illiteracy among the aristocracy in the 1240s, I very much doubt that they scrutinised legislation line by line, although they may have been able to subject it to a broad scrutiny.
Such debates bring Parliament into disrepute. Fortunately, most members of the public have better things to do than to scrutinise Hansard and realise what points Members of Parliament make. That was not scrutiny: it was a ludicrous parliamentary game.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is making a risible fist of her speech. What does she have to say about the constitution unit's recent bulletin, which complains of legislative logjam and highlights the fact that in this Session we have so far had 2,537 pages of legislation? Instead of talking always about circumscribing debate, why does not the hon. Lady advise her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to curb their insatiable appetite for more badly drafted, ill-considered legislation?

Dr. Starkey: The hon. Gentleman will know that the place to debate legislation in detail is in Committee. He will also know that most of the Members who spoke in the wasteful debates on those four Bills on the Floor of the House had made no attempt to use the proper mechanism of Committee to table amendments. Instead, they introduced amendments at the end of the process, not, I suspect, because they had any real wish to amend the legislation, but because they were playing parliamentary games.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Starkey: No, I have already given way to an inordinate number of Conservative Members, and I note that the Leader of the Opposition gave way to hardly anyone, even though he had much longer than I have to speak.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Norton report, which contains plenty of interesting suggestions. Many of them have been wholly or partially implemented through the Modernisation Committee. They include timetabling, the publication of draft Bills, the use of Select Committees to consider draft legislation and the use of Joint Committees. Many other ideas in the Norton report are well worth considering, such as the greater use of electronic technology—I recommend that notion to Opposition Members who voted against it—and better resources for Back-Bench MPs though an increase in the office costs allowance. It is extremely difficult for Back-Bench MPs to do their multiple jobs properly when the administrative arrangements of this place get in the way. I mention the fact that it is only possible for two Members at once to get into the Parliamentary Data and Video Network in the House of Commons Library even though there are some 650 of us. It is important that practical measures are taken so that we can do our job more effectively.
It is important that Select Committees have more resources. I emphasise the fact that other proposals of the Modernisation Committee have been put into effect, so Select Committee reports are now debated in the House properly and in more detail. There has been a fourfold increase in debate on Select Committee reports. That is a valuable addition to the House's scrutiny of legislation.
The sudden conversion of Members on the Conservative Front Bench to the modernisation of Parliament, now that they have the Norton report,

is extremely surprising. The Leader of the Opposition's contention that the latest Modernisation Committee report was Government inspired is extraordinary. That report was in response to determined pressure from Labour Back Benchers, and perhaps from some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers. Although I welcome the report, as a Back Bencher I do not think that it has gone far enough, and I for one will continue to keep up the pressure on the Modernisation Committee to modernise with rather more will and effectiveness than it has shown already.
Even that report is opposed by the Conservatives. They are opposed to the recommendation that there should be no votes after 10 o'clock at night. I do not know whether Conservatives Members have read what those postponed votes would be on, but the Leader of the Opposition gives the impression that they would be on huge, substantive matters. In fact, they would be on statutory instruments, debatable motions on the membership of Select Committees, which I agree are important—some of us would welcome the opportunity to oppose, with much greater ease, the membership of a Select Committee of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) if he were to try for it again—prayers against statutory instruments, and money and ways and means resolutions.
The other night, again as a parliamentary device, MPs were kept walking round the Lobby for more than an hour voting on a number of statutory instruments, some of which I suspect the Conservatives had no particular reason for opposing, but they did so because they decided to express their displeasure about the Football (Disorder) Bill by keeping us all here for an extra hour. Again, that sort of thing brings Parliament into disrepute.
The Opposition are out of touch when it comes to the reform of Parliament. In particular, I think of their attacks on so-called family friendly measures. I make no apology for saying that if the House of Commons is to attract high calibre people of both sexes—in particular, those who are still young enough to have young children—it needs to introduce family friendly practices. That would bring this Parliament up to date with all but the most reactionary employers out in the real world. We should not apologise for that.
The Norton report states:
An effective Opposition is essential to a healthy political process.
I agree. The problem is that the Conservatives at present are not an effective Opposition and no amount of parliamentary reform, desirable though it is in itself, can overcome that fact. They are not a credible Opposition. They need some credible policies and then they might start to oppose effectively.

Mr. John Butterfill: In the 17 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen a progressive reduction in the power of Back Benchers to influence what happens here, not just in the Chamber but throughout the House. I include the way in which the House is run, our procedures and the way that Government power has progressively increased. That disturbs me.
I sympathise with many of the objectives of the Modernisation Committee. I entered the House when my children were at primary school and, to a large extent,


being here stopped me seeing much of their growing up into young adults. I have seen the pressure that my being a Member of Parliament put on my family and on my wife in particular. If we can do something to improve that situation, it should be done. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, that will encourage a wider section of the population to view coming here as a realistic possibility.
The problem with some of the Modernisation Committee's proposals is that the Committee does not realise the impact that they would have on the Opposition or the way in which they would limit the Opposition's power to call the Executive to account. I agree that voting at 3 o'clock in the morning is not very desirable. It does not happen much nowadays, but it used to happen far more often a few years ago. To the extent that it does happen, it does not improve the quality of debate or of decision making. It is true that the power of the Opposition to delay and even frustrate Members on the Government Benches is a powerful weapon and can be used to wring concessions from a reluctant Government. If it is to be removed—there are good arguments for timetabling—it must be replaced with something more effective than what the Modernisation Committee has suggested.
I also have grave reservations about the idea of holding votes that have not taken place after 10 o'clock in the evening on the following Wednesday. I know that it is done in the Dutch Parliament, but important issues should be the subject of proper debate and should be voted on by people who have taken part in the debate. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, we could have a situation in which some of those voting had no experience of what happened in the debate and some of those who took part in the debate were unable to vote because of other commitments. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Committee will reconsider that proposal.
There are severe problems in that Back Benchers do not control this place and that the House does not control its own affairs. Significant improvements need to be made for the benefit of all who serve here. Many of the suggestions that have come forward are good ones, including many from the Modernisation Committee. The Liaison Committee's recommendations about the selection of members of Select Committees and increasing the powers of those Committees are important, but I do not think that they go far enough.
One of the problems is that only one Member in any particular office is elected, and that is the Speaker. Madam Speaker has been an inspiration to us all, but more holders of the great offices of the House should be truly democratically elected if we are to take control of our own affairs once again.
There will always be the need for political parties to have influence in the way in which the House is run. However, it is not a good idea to have all members of a Select Committee effectively appointed through their respective Whips' Offices. Membership of the Chairmen's Panel, on which I have the honour to serve, and your own position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is gained effectively

through the nomination process. That is not a good idea. We should have a Committee of Selection that genuinely selects Members on the basis of their expertise, their talent and the contribution that they can bring to bear in the positions in which they are placed. Therefore, we need a new form of Committee of Selection.

Mr. MacShane: I shall make a brief intervention because I hope to speak later in the debate. A Committee of Selection will have a majority and a minority. Presumably, the majority will be composed of Government Members. The hon. Gentleman will not get away from that problem. Is he aware that Select Committees, which are supposed to be stuffed with Government placemen, bring fear and terror to the hearts of many Departments? When their reports come out, most Ministers seem to have been kissed by a cobra. If Select Committees are stuffed with placemen, how do they cause so much trouble?

Mr. Butterfill: I am not suggesting that they are stuffed with placemen. I know from my own experience that many members of Select Committees behave extremely well and are active in calling Ministers to account. I am saying that we have lost control of the levers of power in this place. We need to rebalance the power between the Executive and the House.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Butterfill: No. I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. There is a limited time for debate.
We need to regain the balance. It is wrong that the Government control what is legislated upon, the timing of it and the procedure. The House should be deciding on procedure. In an appropriate Committee, the House should be deciding what is a reasonable amount of time to allocate. The House must take control of its own proceedings.
It is intolerable that either the Government or the usual channels have such great power in this place. It is vital, therefore, that we consider again the way in which we are run. It is important that we take on board the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and the Norton report. Ideally, it is important that the Government initiate a debate and a programme of change that will give back to hon. Members power over the proceedings of Parliament.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman talks about giving back powers to the House. He has proposed that the Government should not control the legislative programme, should not appoint Members to Select Committees and, if I understood him correctly, should not be the final arbiter on any of the matters that the Government now control in the House. He talks about going back to a certain time. Will he tell me of a time when any Government of whatever party have not had such powers?

Mr. Butterfill: The right hon. Lady makes a powerful point, but she will know that that is the situation in other legislatures. Perhaps I was wrong to talk about giving back. Perhaps giving to the House would be a better phrase.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I have never heard such a load of claptrap from the Opposition as I have heard today. The thought that the Conservative party has suddenly become the upholder of democracy and is to improve it, given the Conservatives 18 years in power, is unbelievable. The performance of the Leader of the Opposition was somewhat lacking, and that is being as kind as I can.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Twigg: I have only just started and will carry on for a while.
It was difficult to spot the substance of the Leader of the Opposition's speech. Interestingly, an article in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week stated that the right hon. Gentleman said that
in principle, he agreed with the analysis
in Norton's report. We await with bated breath to find out which line the Tories take on the recommendations.
Today, we have heard so much hypocrisy from the Tories, but less than half of the parliamentary party was here when the debate started. If it is such a crucial issue for them, why were they not all here? Why did they all disappear as soon as William Hague went home? It is such an important issue for democracy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to call other hon. Members by their correct titles.

Mr. Twigg: The Leader of the Opposition went and Conservative Members disappeared. If the matter is so important, why did they do that? Really, this is about playing politics; it is not a serious debate.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Twigg: In a minute.
At Trade and Industry questions this morning, no more than 10 Conservative Back Benchers were present. I am not even sure that most of them tried to ask a question. If that is parliamentary scrutiny, it backs up my argument that the Tories are not interested—it is all about making political points.
I will be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) now.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House which party was in power when the Select Committee system was introduced? Does he support the principle of that system of Select Committees scrutinising the role of the Executive?

Mr. Twigg: I want to talk about Select Committees for a minute. Would the hon. Gentleman have supported the decision to get rid of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health? Clearly, that was done by the previous Government's Whips. If that is the way in which the Conservative party wants to do it, that is fine, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would have supported that move had he been here. I did not hear many

Conservatives say what a terrible thing it was at the time. If that is the way that the Conservative party operates, it brings me back to my main point that this is not a serious debate about democracy; it is about political point scoring.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Twigg: Given the hon. Gentleman's position, I will give way once more.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who objected to that action against my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and who has been in the House for a long time, I must point out that we are recognising that things have not been perfect in the past. That is why we give such strong support to the report of the Liaison Committee.

Mr. Twigg: I love the way in which the Conservative party goes back to year zero, as though nothing happened before. Suddenly, the Conservatives are enlightened—they are in opposition now. What it comes down to is that they do not like the fact that the Labour party is in government with a massive majority. It also comes down to the fact that they are an ineffectual Opposition. They cannot make any headway in the way that they oppose us. In fact, some of the Opposition are not even worthy of discussion. Their failure to oppose the Government is what this is about—their frustrations and trying to score political points.
Let us deal with the Leader of the Opposition. I asked the Library to look up how many Opposition day debates the right hon. Gentleman had attended—I was interested to find out how important those days were to the Conservatives and to their leader. For some reason, the right hon. Gentleman did not manage to get to more than 50 per cent. of the Divisions on those days. The Conservative party and its leader say that they are serious about democracy and making an impact, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot get to a majority of the votes on Opposition days, which shows that they are not serious about opposition—really, it is about political point scoring. The idea of having more democracy is lost on the Conservative party.
I welcome the inroads that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made with her Modernisation Committee—a number of hon. Members have also made important contributions—into making more democratic the way in which the House works. They have made great strides. They have certainly done better than the Conservatives when they were in power and much credit for that should go to my right hon. Friend. In just three years in government, they have made great strides.
The Conservative party, unfortunately, seems to have missed that point—perhaps it is fortunate, depending on which way one looks at it—and they do not seem to want to talk too much about their record. We all remember what they did when they were in government.
I mention the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about the support for Back Benchers, which has been pretty derisory. When I came here in 1997, I could not believe that we were left looking around for weeks for offices, for support for staff and


for information technology support. Again, some improvements have been made, but if we are talking about accountability and giving Back Benchers real power to do things and to scrutinise, we must have proper resources. It is not good enough at the moment.
Again, I have not seen too many Conservative Members jumping up and saying, "We must have more resources." They did not do so when they were in power. We have seen some improvements, but I want more. Back-Bench Members should have better support on both staff and resources generally, so that they can do their job better, particularly in research. That is important.
We must come back to the main issue: which party in the House is serious about making reforms and improving things? It is clear from the record that I have talked about that it is the Labour party, the Government party, that is trying to do that. The Opposition have an abject history of failure on the matter. They are not interested because they are a derisory Opposition. They cannot oppose the Government. The debate is about one simple thing: the Opposition's frustration that they can make no inroads into the Government. They are a poor Opposition and should be condemned for it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The trouble with the Opposition's motion is that it seems to be based on a premise that history began in 1997. For Francis Fukuyama, history has ended, but few of us with any memory of the past 18 years of the Conservative Government could restrain a hoarse laugh when we listened to the Leader of the Opposition. The importance of the debate and the subject matter of it are undeniable. Therefore, I welcome the fact that it has come forward. I greatly welcome the evidence of thinking belatedly beginning to bubble up inside the Conservative party.
I remember—I say it to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—as a member of the Hansard Society committee on the reform of the legislative process, under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Ripon, bringing forward repeatedly to him in this place the request that its proposals be debated and discussed in the House, and they were not. There was a clear and deliberate decision by the Government of the day to stifle any serious discussion of constitutional reform. Time after time, Bills were brought forward to introduce a Bill of Rights in this place. Time after time, Conservative Ministers stood in the way.
It must be said that the problem did not even begin when the Thatcher Government came to office. It goes back even further. Some of us will remember how, when the House voted to establish a Parliament in Scotland in 1978, it was opposed by the Conservatives on the ground not that they were utterly opposed to devolution for Scotland, but that they did not like those particular proposals for a Scottish Parliament. We were led to believe that they would bring forward their own proposals.
It is plain in the memory of everyone that no such proposals were brought forward when the opportunity to legislate was given. Even the undertakings of the late Sir Alec Douglas-Home on the matter were totally

ignored. It is not only in particulars; it is in the wider understanding of the Conservative party. Its failure to act when it has an opportunity calls into question the validity, if not the good faith, of what Conservative Members utter when in opposition.
Lord Hailsham did not make his oft-quoted criticism of our system of government as an elective dictatorship as Lord Chancellor; he made many speeches about the virtues of our constitution when he was Lord Chancellor. He did that before he became Lord Chancellor. The minute that he became Lord Chancellor in a Conservative Government, his enthusiasm for reform evaporated. Therefore, although I like some of the ideas being canvassed by Conservative Members, I have absolutely no confidence that they would be implemented if there were a Conservative Administration.
My experience is that this Labour Government have done a great deal to change the way in which we do things and make decisions. They are in the middle of major constitutional reform. That reform has been well begun, although it is far from complete. However, it was wrong to couch this debate in the strident, adversarial terms with which it was opened.
I think that this Parliament of ours, set against the Executive, has remarkably little authority. However, that is not new. The situation has been created because Parliament does not choose to use its powers to hold the Executive effectively to account and to cause the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, to change their mind. That is not universally true, and of course it is much less true when majorities are small.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, referred to Lord Pym's famous remark—for which he lost his political head—about majorities that are too large. During debates on the Maastricht legislation, the right hon. Member certainly had to listen to Back Benchers. He certainly had also to listen to hon. Members from minority parties, including my own, on that legislation. The reality is that, if there are smaller majorities in the House, there will be more-listening Governments.

Mr. Hope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, on this occasion, because of time, I would prefer not to.
I tell Conservative Members that they have never really dealt with how to address the issue of over-large majorities. On the whole, it is desirable that Governments should have majorities. However, over-large majorities clearly are not desirable. If Conservative Members were to examine the whole issue of electoral reform with greater seriousness, they would recognise the virtues of proportional representation and the fact that it would not only greatly diminish the risk of over-large majorities, but enormously strengthen both the position of Opposition parties and the power of this Chamber.

Mr. John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman's thesis is predicated on a situation in which the governing party's Back Benchers do not think that a part of their responsibility is to hold


the Executive to account. A large majority gives the Executive unbridled power only if their own Back Benchers do not do their job properly.

Mr. Maclennan: I was going to deal with that point, because I do not take that view. In fact, I take precisely the converse view—that Government Back Benchers have a dual role. They certainly have to support their Government in some measure, as that is what they have been elected broadly to do, but they have also to exercise their own independent judgment. That has not been done with the frequency that I should have wished. However, that is not an entirely new phenomenon—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), whom I have never noticed in the Chamber before, speaks from not very long experience, and certainly not from experience that goes back to the days when I was a member of the Labour party. In those days, the Labour party was known to have a greater amount of independence than it seems to have now. There was one very important occasion, which at least history records, when 69 Labour Members voted against a three-line Whip on the issue of the European Union. Had it not been for that, I question whether we would have joined the European Union until many years later.
There were a number of other occasions when Labour Members thought it right to dissent. For example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was one of a number of Labour Members who supported the Government most of the time, but voted against their proposals for the reform of the upper House. That resulted in the defeat of those Government proposals. May I say to the hon. Member for Harrow, East, the Government Whip who is sitting below the Gangway, that, in those days, that was admirable independence. This is a short debate and a short speech, but the problems that I am addressing will not be resolved by mechanistic means.
The hours at which the Prime Minister chooses to come before us are as nothing compared with the powers of those sitting behind him to hold him to account if they choose to stand up to him. We have had metaphysics and mechanics from the Government—metaphysics about Parliament being the heart of the nation's debate, when in reality the public feels very divorced from it. I believe that the solution lies in ourselves.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: First, let me say that I genuinely believe that certain Opposition Members have strong and independent views on the subject of this afternoon's debate, but I am touched by the number of ex-Ministers—particularly among the Opposition, but one or two on the Government side—who suddenly develop affection for the independence of Back Benchers once they cease to be Ministers, or indeed Prime Ministers.
There is no question but that since day one of this Parliament the official Opposition have presented the issue in an intensely party political way. They have been distorting the truth, perpetuating a myth and creating their own virtual reality in relation to the Government's attitude towards Parliament. At the root of the problem is their arrogant belief that they were born to rule and that somehow on 1 May 1997 the British people did not quite know what they were doing and made a ghastly mistake, waking up on 2 May to find, much to their surprise,

that there was a Labour Government with a significant majority. However, the British people gave the Labour party its majority in the House and the mandate to govern.
From day one, the Opposition's strategy has been deliberate. In the absence of credible policies, they have sought to fuel cynicism about politicians and the political process. They have sought to neutralise the British people's perception that sleaze and arrogance belong to the Conservative party, by implying that all politicians are the same. In a political environment in which all democrats should feel an obligation to enhance the electorate's confidence in their elected representatives, they have cynically embarked on a scorched earth approach.
The Conservatives are so wedded to the sanctity of democratic accountability that they fought to save hereditary peers—the most undemocratic example of people having a say in legislation. They have used every parliamentary rule available to deny the will of the House and the majority of the British people in relation to the banning of hunting with dogs.
The Conservatives are so committed to their role as scrutineers and defenders of the public interest that 73 per cent. of their number register outside interests that are likely to undermine their capacity to do a full-time job as a Member of Parliament. Is it any wonder that they have no desire to reform the office costs allowance, for example? They do not need the resources to do a proper job on behalf of their constituents because they are making so much money through other means.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the view of Lord Nolan, which has subsequently been backed up by Lord Neill, that outside interests are an essential part of parliamentary life and enrich parliamentarians' contributions to this place, and that without outside interests Parliament would be much the poorer?

Mr. Lewis: I made a commitment to my constituents when I was elected that I would have one job, and one only—to represent the people of Bury, South. That takes up every single minute of every hour of every day that I have available.
Despite the Conservative party's appalling record, I do not want to attack Tory Members in the abstract: I want instead to deal with some of the issues that they have raised. First, there is the matter of the Prime Minister and his relationship with the House. It has been noted that Prime Minister's Question Time used to take up two 15-minute sessions a week, and that there is now one session of 30 minutes. The Leader of the Opposition uses a significant portion of that 30 minutes. If he was really concerned about Back-Bench Members, he would leave more time for them to contribute.

Mr. Hope: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at the last eight Prime Minister's Question Times, the Leader of the Opposition has failed to raise the matter of education once? Is that a surprise or, given the £24 billion-worth of cuts that would hit education if the Conservatives ever returned to power, is it because the Opposition do not want to talk about education on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been said that Prime Minister's Question Time is about


scrutiny, but it is time for hon. Members to stop conning people. Prime Minister's Question Time has more to do with pantomime than with scrutiny. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) addressed the House earlier, but he omitted to mention that he suggested to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it would be a good idea to introduce the current system for Prime Minister's Question Time.
We have heard about a lack of statements from the Prime Minister, but he has made at least as many as his predecessors. As for my right hon. Friend's voting record, do Conservative Members really believe that our constituents want their Prime Minister to be tied down night after night to votes in the House, instead of making the critical decisions about policy—international, social and economic—that will determine and shape the future of the country? If Conservative Members believe that, they are not in the real world.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman referred to international policy, and he will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House of a single occasion during the Committee proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which ratified the treaty of Amsterdam, when the Prime Minister attended?

Mr. Lewis: No, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman!

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that my hon. Friend will try and find out how often Lady Thatcher sat through debates—on the Single European Act, for example. I think that he will also find that the presence of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) during the Maastricht debates had more to do with the fact that he was fighting his own party than with any other factor.

Mr. Lewis: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As far as I recall, Baroness Thatcher was not known, as Prime Minister, for her commitment to scrutiny, democracy or accountability.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, Select Committees criticise aspects of Government policy on a regular basis. Ministers fear their reports and the Select Committees frequently demonstrate their independence, so why is there a need for change? The House should remember that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) dared to tell the British people what his party was doing to the national health service. The response from the then Conservative Government was to remove him from the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health.
If Conservative Members are genuinely worried about the role of Select Committees, why have they not been honest with the British people and welcomed the establishment of more Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and ad hoc Committees on draft legislation? At the risk of prompting a massive reaction from certain Conservative Members, may I ask why the Opposition have not welcomed the enhanced scrutiny that takes place of all European Union

business. Why have the Opposition not told the people about what Westminster Hall has done to quadruple the chance to debate Select Committee reports? Why have they not welcomed the Westminster Hall experiment, which has given Back-Bench Members so many more opportunities, on subjects of their choosing, to hold Ministers to account?
As for modernisation of the House, it is right that we seek consensus, but the Conservative party always refuses to reach consensus on modernisation issues, because it wants to portray the Government as arrogant and controlling. That is why it will not play ball on reorganisation and modernisation. Once again, it is a question of being cut off from the real world.
The people in our constituencies do not want us to sit through the night debating meaningless issues. That is not their definition of scrutiny and holding people to account, of running the country in a businesslike fashion. Once the front-line speakers on both sides have finished, are there more than half a dozen hon. Members anywhere in the House when the so-called democratic scrutiny takes place? It is a charade and an illusion.
Another important point is that all our constituents value the role that constituency Members play in their constituencies as community leaders and case workers every bit as much as they value the role that Members play in the House. The new generation of Members, largely on the Labour Benches House, have adopted the role of community leaders in a way never previously seen.
With regard to devolution, my party has given the people of Scotland, of Wales, of London and of Northern Ireland the opportunity to have power returned closer to their communities so that they genuinely have a role in the making of decisions about their affairs. That is really extending democracy, scrutiny and accountability.
Its choice of subject for this Opposition day typifies the modern Conservative party—a dodgy party, selling dodgy goods with worthless guarantees. It seeks the lowest common denominator in politics, because it has no answers on the big issues that affect the everyday lives of the British people: jobs, the health service, schools, crime, transport and Britain's role in the world. I look forward to its pledge card at the next election: "Save the pound for one Parliament", "Privatise the National Health Service", "Ban spin". I can hardly wait for the campaign to begin.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I hope that the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) will be rewarded by the Whips, even if after receiving that reward his capacity to act as a 24-hour-a-day social worker in his constituency is diminished, because a speech of such egregious loyalty deserves its reward.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: By speaking in such a patronising and arrogant way about Members' role in their constituencies being that of 24-hour-a-day social workers, the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated why Conservative Members are sitting where they are and we are sitting on the Government Benches.

Mr. Rowe: If the hon. Gentleman knew my record well, he would know that I devote a great deal of my time in my constituency to exactly such causes. I would not, however, claim that every minute of every hour of every day was dedicated to that function.
I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) two characteristics. First, I am sorry that the debate got off to such a partisan start. The issues in it are much more important than partisan politics. The other thing that I share with my right hon. Friend is that I, too, am retiring at the next election. There the comparison ends—my career cannot really be said to compare with his in any meaningful way.
I think that we do ourselves no good by continuing with a rhetoric that is entirely meaningless and can confuse the public. For example, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred this afternoon to how many people are in the Chamber at any given time. Considering the enormous variety of occupations that Members of Parliament have—working in their constituencies, serving on Select Committees or serving on Standing Committees—we all know that the number of Members present in the Chamber for long periods is meaningless, and I am sorry that we bandy this insult about.

Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rowe: No, I think not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The sadness is that there is a kind of Gresham's law of politics: bad politics drives out good. Whatever a Government's bad behaviour, the Opposition will elaborate on it when they get into power. That is one reason why we are in such a mess.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rowe: I will give way once more, and then I will not give way again.

Mr. Taylor: Notwithstanding the fact that it is widely accepted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that presence in the Chamber is not a particularly good measure of activity or quality, is it not astonishing that on an Opposition day of this kind, only 8 per cent. of the 165 Conservative Members of Parliament can be bothered to be present at this point?

Mr. Rowe: I do not think that that is any more relevant than the many occasions on which one might expect members of the governing party to be present and they are not.
Being a Member of Parliament is an extraordinary job. It is, I think, the only job left in the United Kingdom for which no qualifications of any description are required. There is a huge and diverse variety of activities open to a Member of Parliament on first coming here, and many people become engulfed. They may take up the chairmanship of outside groups—for sustainable waste management, for example—or may be the spokesman for various charities, which they do out of the best motives.
Back Benchers do not organise themselves, either in their own parties or across the House, when it comes to calling the Government to account. Governments take advantage of that, of course, and as they organise the business of the House, they load people whom they believe may be difficult with the kind of occupations that make it harder for them to be difficult. In that way, we do ourselves no good.
I share the sentiment that we have more power to call the Government to account than we make use of. I am a fine one to talk, because in my career here I have had far too many outside activities—not, I have to say, registrable activities—and have not played as great a role as I should have done in calling Governments to account.
We also have a media-driven obsession with immediacy of reaction. Most of the issues on which Governments need to be called to account are slow burning, such as whether they are delivering the programme they promised; spending the money they were voted; or administering effectively and properly the organisations for which they are responsible. However, we have become obsessed with the idea that if something is said on "Today" and announced to the House later in the day, it gets the press coverage for that day and there is no point in following it up further. The Select Committees, on the other hand, choose a small number of subjects each year and go into them in detail. I believe that Back Benchers should get together in small groups to follow through various elements of Government expenditure and administration and pursue them in depth.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; we do not use the powers that we have. Does he share my reservations about the proposal in the Liaison Committee report, and echoed by Norton, that there should be a half-hour debate soon after a Select Committee report is published? There is perhaps less worth in an off-the-cuff reaction—especially to a serious report—than there would be in a more measured response.

Mr. Rowe: I take the right hon. Lady's point. However, there is something to be said for allowing Select Committees to present their reports on the Floor of the House where there could be 10 minutes or so of interchange, rather than issuing them at a press conference. That would be a better way to proceed. If Select Committees have to present their reports to the media instead of on the Floor of the House, we subscribe to our own annoyance when we complain that announcements are made in that way.
We need to consider the working of our party organisations. They make it harder for individual Back Benchers to stand out against their party. An excessive belief has grown up that any form of disagreement is disloyalty. That is wholly wrong. The use of such processes as reselection procedures in constituencies has an enervating effect. I should be sorry if that went any further.
Governments have not helped. Earlier, there was some discussion of whether this is a grown-up Parliament. In many cases, Governments are not grown-up either. They carry to extreme their obsession with not giving way on even one amendment in a raft of legislation that is often complex—whether important or trivial. Members of Standing Committees are constantly made to feel less effective because of the Government's resolute determination not to pay attention to an amendment. That is not grown-up. The public does not think that it is grown-up either. They know perfectly well that we deal with complex and difficult issues; if we disagreed with our party over those issues, people would not shriek, "Ooh, there you are—they're all disloyal."
There has been much talk about using the internet and IT to collect information, opinions and so on. I hope that when the UK Youth Parliament is established, we shall


make great use of those technologies. However, the difference between us and everyone else is that, at some point, our decision must be recorded. The man in the pub can change his mind three times in an evening and put his views on the internet. Our decisions are recorded. That means that, despite the internet, this place will remain important.

Gillian Merron: The quality of our democracy can only be as good as the effectiveness of the Opposition. The Opposition's interesting choice to use five hours of valuable parliamentary time for a debate on this subject is emphasising their shortcomings in effectively holding the Government to account.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made a key observation about the content of the parliamentary day with which I agree. He said that the House should apply itself to matters that concern people in their everyday life. I agree that the relationship between Parliament and the Executive must enable that to happen. However, we have to get real. We need to examine how the current arrangements and facilities are used by the Opposition; they already have a number of parliamentary means at their disposal.
Like several of my colleagues, I have looked into the use of Opposition days and how the realities of life outside the House are reflected in their consideration in this place. As we have already heard, there has not been a Tory Opposition day debate on the economy, the new deal or employment. There has not been a Tory Opposition day debate on the economy since November 1998. I wonder why that is.
The official unemployment figures that were published yesterday show that, since the election, unemployment in Lincoln is down by nearly a half and long-term unemployment is down by nearly three quarters. On these issues—the economy, employment and the new deal—there are strong feelings on both sides, and there is clear water between us.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is simply factually incorrect. Is she unaware of the Opposition day debate on the new deal that was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)? That is on the record, so she ought to know about it.

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman must take account of the priority that Opposition Members attach to Opposition day subjects and the way in which they use the debates. For example, there have not been any Opposition day debates on subjects, such as child poverty, that are a great priority in my constituent's lives. Today, I received confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that more than £2 million pounds of Government money will go to a sure start programme in Birchwood in Lincoln. It will enable the under-fours to get the best start in life. That is one of the priorities of my constituents.
There has not been an Opposition day debate on third-world debt. I am sure that many hon. Members share this experience, but the number of representations that I

have received from my constituents on their concerns about third-world debt and their interest in the Government's record has been exceeded only by representations about fox hunting. We should devote the right amount of time to quality debates on the issues that impact on people's lives.
Reference has been made to voting records. Voting is an important means of expressing opinion, and I draw the House's attention to the fact that the top Conservative Member in this regard is the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who is ranked 208th on the list.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not trying to score party political points, but it is important that Members realise that when members of the Chairmen's Panel chair a Standing Committee, they take no part in the progress of that Bill on Report and Third Reading. That can deprive them of the opportunity to vote on many occasions. The record to which the hon. Lady rightly refers does not always accurately reflect Members' work and their commitment to the House of Commons.

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. However, I refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition who clearly referred to the Prime Minister's voting record. The right hon. Gentleman even compared the voting records of those on the Government Front Bench, to whom the hon. Gentleman's arguments apply, with those of Opposition Front Benchers. We must be cautious in drawing conclusions, but I stick to the point—I shall not labour it any further—that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, at 208 on the list, is the Conservative Member who has voted most often. That point will be of interest to the public.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gillian Merron: I will not because I would like to move on to consider the issue of modernisation and change. I am pleased that the Opposition are embracing discussion of those issues. For that, I say, "Welcome to the 21st century."
I am an advocate of modernisation, but the guiding light in that regard should be an effort to achieve more efficient government better to serve the country. That point must run through all our considerations. I know that my constituents would strongly support moves in that direction. I have no doubt that no business would survive if it were run in the way that the House is run. There is no meeting of any value that would allow the time of the meeting to continue without limit. No sensible gathering would allow those in attendance to dominate others for an extraordinary amount of time. I feel that it befits the House to look at how it conducts business on behalf of the public.
Let us look at some of the progress made by the Government. We have heard about the removal of the inherited privileges from the House of Lords. This has come about almost 100 years after the first attempt and shows the true commitment of Labour Members to ensuring that the Houses of Parliament are more accountable to the people. There has also been the introduction of parallel sittings in Westminster Hall, which has doubled the opportunities for scrutiny—especially for Back Benchers—and has allowed constructive


opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. I hope we would all welcome that. There has been improved scrutiny of European business, which has increased coverage of all European business matters.
The words "European" and "dome" create a ripple of excitement among Opposition Members. I wish to draw the House's attention to the menu in the Dining Room, where we can see on offer a Mediterranean vegetable dome. I am concerned that this may cause heartburn to Opposition Members.
One of the Opposition's priorities is that Prime Minister's Question Time should be held twice a week, for 20 minutes each time. In terms of Prime Minister's Question Time, I think we must look at matters of substance, rather than spin. We should listen to the words of a young visitor who said recently that he did not know why it was called Prime Minister's Question Time—Prime Minister's argument time might be better. We must move beyond that. It is up to the Opposition to decide whether they want Prime Minister's Question Time to be the most colourful show on the London stage or whether they want it to be a true opportunity to hold the Prime Minister to account. That is entirely in their gift.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Lady recognise that the main problem we have is that the Prime Minister never answers our questions?

Gillian Merron: As with any relationship, it is a two-way process. Opposition Members should look at how they conduct their questioning of the Prime Minister.
If Parliament is about people's lives, we should be debating the political differences between the parties. I would like to hear more, as would my constituents, about the Opposition's plans to charge for hip replacements; to drive families back into poverty by abolishing the working families tax credit; and to punish the poorest pensioners by taking away winter fuel allowances, just as they scrapped free eye tests and slapped VAT on fuel.
It is the job of the Opposition to challenge and question the Government, and the mechanism must surely allow that. However, in the same way, the mechanism must allow the Government to govern effectively in the interests of the people of this country. This House should strive for efficiency and not make excuses.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I promise to be brief, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron).
Given the relatively trivial agenda of some Government Back Benchers today, I declare immediately a series of registered outside interests, one of which is remunerated and which the Government are shortly to nationalise. The Government have indicated that they will continue to remunerate it in future in its revised form.
I should declare an interest also as a member of the Norton commission, which welcomed a number of the reforms carried out in this Parliament, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was good enough to say. Also, I am a member of the Liaison Committee. I am not a member of the Modernisation Committee.
The Norton commission was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore its report will not be the subject of a separate debate in this House, beyond the extent to which it has formed part of the agenda for today's debate.
I have understood from the Leader of the House at recent business questions that we shall debate both the Liaison Committee report and the latest Modernisation Committee report on separate occasions, so there will be separate opportunities to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair on those reports in due course. Any references to them today, therefore, will be glancing.
As the Norton commission's report will not be the subject of a separate debate, I shall take the liberty of contributing to our debate the first three paragraphs with which my noble Friend Lord Norton, an admirable and industrious chairman of the commission, opened the speech that launched the report in the Jubilee Room last Monday. He said:
Parliament is at the heart of our political system. It is the essential and definitive link between the individual and government. Weaken Parliament and, in the long run, you undermine the health of the whole political system.
In the report, we identify the functions of Parliament and the purpose of parliamentary reform. Too often, reforms are proposed for different purposes. Some are designed to expedite the business of Government, some are for the convenience of Members of Parliament, some are designed to remove archaic practices. Others are designed to strengthen Parliament in calling government to account.
The focus of this report is precise and consistent. We are concerned solely with strengthening Parliament in calling government to account. Parliament fulfils many of its functions well but we believe that it could, and should, be far more effective in forcing government to explain itself, to justify its measures, to answer for mistakes and to heed the concerns of citizens. There is a clear imbalance in the relationship between Parliament and the executive. In the report, we identify the reasons for the imbalance and we put forward proposals to correct it.
I shall not dwell further on the report, save to say that we sought to fulfil the objectives in the report with muscular prose, which one commentator commended as significantly impartial, considering the report's authors.

Mr. Hope: When the right hon. Gentleman was on the commission and proposed strengthening the Select Committee system, did he take into account Conservative Members' appalling record of attendance in Select Committees? The whole debate has rested on the assumption that the Select Committee system works. Clearly, Opposition Members failed to turn up and failed to make the existing system operate well.

Mr. Brooke: I have noticed—indeed, the House cannot have failed to notice—the hon. Gentleman's obsession with people's attendance in Select Committee and their participation in reports, and shall come to that matter before I conclude my remarks.
I hope that the criteria set by the commission will be reverted to in judging the functional virtues of other reform proposals and, as a member of the Liaison Committee, whose chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is still sitting loyally in the Chamber, I shall be happy for our report to be subject to those tests. I am not in a position to criticise the Prime Minister for his inability to recognise the Deputy Speaker, as I did the same thing at business questions last week,


although I did it only once. The Prime Minister, however, seemed to have difficulty in recognising the Deputy Speaker even once, although today may be the first time that the Prime Minister has been in the Chamber in this Parliament with someone other than the Speaker in the Chair.
I was more troubled when the Prime Minister said that Northern Ireland had been asking for devolution for 100 years, as it has already had it for 50 of the last 100. I know that the Prime Minister has an idiosyncratic definition of conservatism, but reform is best based on a broad understanding of where one has come from as well as where one wishes to go. My membership of the Liaison Committee derives from chairing the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) rather leads with his chin with his obsession with attendance at Select Committee meetings. I am content for him to read out my attendance record, but he should not disguise the fact that five minutes' attendance out of, say, 105 minutes, which is the standard duration of our meetings, is enough to secure a Select Committee member a 100 per cent. record of attendance, provided he or she turns up to every meeting.

Mr. Hope: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. Some Conservative Members have the habit of turning up for five minutes to register their attendance and then leaving, which, in my opinion, is turning up without turning up. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with his colleagues about that further abuse of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Brooke: Forgive me, but, except for 45 minutes, I have sat through every sitting of the Committee that I have chaired. In fact, I have observed the behaviour of members of all parties, not simply of my own.

Angela Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: No, we have a 10-minute rule.
I confess that I once missed 45 minutes of an evidence-taking session in Belfast because planes could not take off from Heathrow. The incidental consequence was that for our Committee's sittings in Northern Ireland yesterday, to mark the marches of the 12th, I had for safety's sake to fly out on Tuesday night, and thus missed the entire substantial business of the remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which, as the Select Committee Chairman, greatly and personally embarrassed me. The relationship between a Select Committee's work out of London and departmental business relating to that Committee in the Chamber is itself worth quiet scrutiny in the margins.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) referred to the Jopling report, to which I do not think the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) did. Nor did I catch his references to the Select Committee reforms introduced by the Conservative Government in 1979. The hon. Lady linked the Jopling report to the Modernisation Committee report. Although I acknowledge that the commencement order for the introduction of the Jopling reforms was

delayed by the then Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), until, as he said a year or two ago, he was confident that Labour would win the election—significant words in themselves—the final report was unanimous, to the credit of the Chairman, my noble Friend Lord Jopling, and other members of the Committee.
I listened to the hon. Members for Hillsborough and for Milton Keynes, South-West, and I sensed that they found my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, wanting for not having been prepared to allow the latest Modernisation Committee report to be adopted unanimously. I will simply say that they should judge my right hon. Friend's views, which are in the report, by the criteria set out in the Norton commission's own parameters. Ultimately, to strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive, reforms need to concentrate on that central objective rather than on the convenience of the Government or individual Members of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew Love: As a member of the Norton commission and a long-standing Member of the House, is the right hon. Gentleman at all concerned that the hijacking of the commission's recommendations means that the only one that has appeared in the press is the proposed change to Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Brooke: When he launched the report, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
However, I am conscious that previous Oppositions have launched policy commissions with great fanfares, and then conveniently left their reports on the shelf gathering dust when they return to Government. To make sure that that does not happen with the Norton Report, I can today make three specific commitments that will form part of our manifesto for the next general election.
However, my right hon. Friend had also said:
It would be an insult to the work of the Commission to announce within minutes of the Report's publication which recommendations my party accepts, and which we reject.
The Leader of the House did an admirable job of exegesis when she explained to me what her deputy, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), had meant by his crystalline adage in the debate on House of Lords reform:
Being democratic does not necessarily mean having elections.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000: Vol. 352, c. 124.]
I look forward, in a separate debate on the Modernisation Committee report, to the Lord President's exegesis as to why that report is intended primarily to strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of the Government. It was to her deputy, during one of the Leader's very rare absences, that I remarked that the Government's initial reaction to the Liaison Committee report had seemed to exemplify what the Prime Minister would describe as the evils of conservatism.
I hope that the debate on parliamentary reform will go on. I speak as the Member for a constituency whose franchise before 1832 was so generous that after the great Reform Act the electorate fell. We owe it to future Parliaments to ensure that we are intellectually honest during the debate that we are having.

Mr. Peter Bradley: There have been many thoughtful contributions to the debate, and I do not intend to add to them because that is not the purpose of the debate. The tone was well and truly set by the Leader of the Opposition. This was an extraordinary topic to choose for a six-hour Opposition day debate. As I heard him galloping on at the Dispatch Box, he reminded me of the charge of the Light Brigade, but without the magnificence because he was leading his troops into the gunfire.
As the right hon. Gentleman progressed, I thought more of the eccentric Peruvian goalkeeper, El Loco. Those who remember his performance in past world cups will know that he used to take the ball out of his penalty area, dribble it up field, lose possession and then have to trudge back to his goal to pick the ball out of the net. Such was the inspiration that characterised the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Conservative Members have been trying to make a fist of conducting a serious and principled debate, but they were all waving their Order Papers in the air when the Leader of the Opposition sat down. As other right hon. and hon. Members have point out, Opposition Members are not very good at opposition. They do not like it. [Interruption.] I hope that they will get used to it and get better at it. Currently, they regard it as an unwelcome and irritating interval between periods of uninterrupted, unfettered power. They simply do not have time for opposition. That is the problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) said, Opposition Members are interested only in power—the power that they wield in this place. They come to this place without a vision, and too infrequently with a sense of duty. They come to exercise power and, often, to benefit from it. Today's debate is another little tantrum on the part of a party that has had its favourite toy taken away from it.

Mr. Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does the debate no favours, and himself no favours, to suggest that hon. Members come to this place without a vision? Most come to the House with a vision, regardless of political party, and most come with a desire to do some good. They do not come principally because they are interested in power. They come because they are interested chiefly in the power to do some good.

Mr. Bradley: That is the second U-turn that I have heard from the Conservative party this week.
The Conservatives want to hold the Government to account. They want tougher scrutiny of Ministers, Departments of State and policy. In launching the Norton report earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition said;
The people of Britain deserve a stronger Parliament, better government and a revived and refreshed democracy, and I believe it is our duty to provide it.
In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask, as other hon. Members have done today, about the Conservatives' record in the past three years. If the Opposition do not hold the Executive to account, who will? Of course it is the function of Back-Bench Members

of the Government party to ask questions and scrutinise the Government. If that is their duty, it is all the more the duty of the Opposition to do so.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: I would prefer to make a little more progress, but I shall be delighted to give way if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On that point—

Mr. Bradley: No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I almost lost my voice trying to intervene on his party leader. I only preserved enough of it to make this speech. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman made more appearances in the Division Lobbies—I hear from my hon. Friends from a sedentary position that he is 400th out of 650—perhaps I would recognise him better when he sought to intervene on me.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can huff and he can puff, but I am on my feet.
The House of Commons Library has just published a digest of Members' participation in Commons Divisions. This is not my interpretation—not my spin. These are the figures from the House of Commons Library. The average attendance at votes by Labour Members of Parliament is 67 per cent. It could be argued that that is not high enough—I am sure that the Whips would agree. The Liberal Democrat participation in votes is a pretty woeful 57 per cent. That is woeful, but it is as nothing compared with the average participation of Conservative Members of Parliament in Divisions, at 54 per cent.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No. I may give way later, but I want to make progress. I have more to say.
I have also studied the returns from November to April. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said, the top Conservative came in at 208, and there were only five Liberal Democrats in the top 200.
The Leader of the Opposition made much of the voting records of Cabinet Ministers. I can tell the House that the Home Secretary outscores the shadow Home Secretary. Perhaps the right hon. Lady is too busy promoting her books. The Secretary of State for Social Security outvotes his opposite number. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury votes in 80 per cent. of the votes, compared to 52 per cent. for his opposite number. I could go on. Is that why hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are called shadow Ministers? If turning up and voting is a test of what the Leader of the Opposition called
a stronger Parliament, better government and revived and refreshed democracy",
the Conservatives have flunked that test.
On Monday, in launching the Norton committee report, the Leader of the Opposition referred to his experience
as a former member of the Select Committees, as a former Minister who has been cross-examined by them.


He said:
I agree that we need to make them stronger and we need to start with the membership.
He could not have made a stronger point. The sessional returns of Select Committees for 1998–99 show that Labour Members attended 71 per cent. of meetings, Liberal Democrats attended 67 per cent., and Conservatives attended a pretty poor 61 per cent.

Angela Smith: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to examine the Standing Committee figures? He may be doing the Opposition a great disservice; there was a tremendous attendance from Opposition Members on two of the Standing Committees on which I have served. They turned up in force for every sitting of the Committee that considered the Minimum Wage Act 1998, to try to stop the minimum wage, and they did so on the Committee that considered the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, so as to protect fox hunting.

Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend must not rush me; I have not finished with the Select Committees. On some of the most important and controversial policies, the Conservative performance is the worst. On the Education and Employment Committee, their turn-out rate is 34 per cent.; on the Trade and Industry Committee, it is 43 per cent.; on the Health Committee, 52 per cent. They say that they are the pensioner's friend on the Social Security Committee—

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as I am a member of a Select Committee?

Mr. Bradley: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. All the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has to do is ask the hon. Gentleman to give way. There is no need to offer credentials when asking to intervene.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House to give hon. Members the opportunity to respond to any attack that is made specifically on them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are having a debate; there was no attack as such.

Mr. Bradley: There is a convention to allow injury time in such debates, for which I am grateful. If time allows, I will certainly allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), Conservative members are no better at attending Standing and Delegated Legislation Committees. Their attendance on the Committee that considered the Care Standards Bill, of which they made so much last night, was as low as 69 per cent., compared with Labour's 89 per cent. On the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, from 2 December to 7 June, it was 73 per cent. compared with Labour's 95 per cent. If they are not doing their job—I suggest that they are not—where are they?

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bradley: No, no; I must be impartial in not giving way.
I shall tell the House where Conservative Members may be. As other hon. Members have suggested, the Register of Members' Interests shows that, while 14 per cent. of Labour Members have outside interests that may take them from the House, the figure for Conservative Members is 73 per cent.; and that 40 of the 64 Front-Bench spokespersons have outside interests. No wonder they have no time to hold the Government to account, to scrutinise or to do the job of the Opposition.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bradley: No. I want to conclude my remarks before my time is up.
If the Conservative voting record is poor in office hours, it is even worse in the evenings—at 52 per cent. However, my analysis does not show how many Conservative Members turn up to vote in their dinner jackets.
I do not want to be complacent about the need for change. Change is needed, but that was not the purpose of today's debate. We do not need to take lessons from Conservative Members. They are failing in their duties. They are so incompetent that most of the damage that the Government have sustained in recent years has been self-inflicted. They are so ineffectual that the media and the press think that they have to do their job for them. They should be judged not on their rhetoric, but on their record. Their record clearly shows that they are no more than part-time parliamentarians, less interested in Parliament than in their pay cheques. That is the reason why they are no better in opposition than they were in government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: First, may I apologise to hon. Members for being absent for part of the debate after the opening speeches? I had to leave the Chamber to chair the Select Committee on Procedure, and I returned as soon as it had finished taking evidence from a Minister.
The debate is about the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and I follow the closing remarks of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) by saying that I hope that I am accepted for my record in this place and for no other reason. I have limited outside interests. I am a full-time politician and I take my work in the House extremely seriously. It may be appropriate if I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), refer to the Committees to which I belong. I am a member of the Modernisation and Liaison Committees, I am a member and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I also sit on the Select Committee on Standing Orders. In addition, I am the senior member of Madam Speaker's Chairmen's Panel and one of four members of the panel appointed to chair sittings in Westminster Hall. I hope that that shows that I take my job in the House very seriously.
I say to the hon. Member for The Wrekin that I have been a Back Bencher for all the 29 years that I have had the honour to serve the people of the county constituency of Macclesfield in the House of Commons. I have relished that job, and in answer to people who ask, "Nicholas, why have you never got anywhere in politics?", I explain, "God gave me a mouth and I have used it." That has not


always endeared me to the establishment, whether that establishment be my own party or the Labour party in government.
I take the role of Back-Bench Member of Parliament very seriously, whether it be scrutinising legislation in the House or looking after the interests of my constituents in Macclesfield or my constituency as a whole. I also take seriously a constitutional role of the Opposition, which is to oppose. For that reason, I am deeply concerned about some proposals in the latest Modernisation Committee report, which is yet to be debated in the House. However, as those Members who take an active interest in these matters know, it will be debated in the roll-over period. I shall hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of another Deputy Speaker. I was about to refer to Madam Speaker, but who knows what the position will be after 23 October?

Ms Bridget Prentice: I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman as much as I enjoy listening to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). Both make elegant speeches in the House, but as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Committees of which he is a member, I wonder whether that self-justification is the opening salvo of a campaign to become Speaker.

Mr. Winterton: It is not an opening salvo—but all right, I am happy to declare to the House that I intend to put my name forward. I do not think that I have said something that I should not, because I have been challenged. I had not intended to raise the matter in my brief speech, but the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, has been kind to me and I feel that I must respond honestly. In this place, I have sought to match my vote to my voice. Perhaps for that reason, I have remained an evergreen Back Bencher, although I believe that Back Benchers have a vital role to play.
Referring briefly to the Modernisation Committee report, one thing worries me about programming legislation, although I shall not comment at this time on the timing of votes. As those on the Treasury Bench and many other Members of the House well know, traditionally, Back Benchers have been guaranteed the chance to take part in a debate on an important Bill only on Report. In many instances there has been no guillotine, and debates have continued until the number of Members wishing to speak has run out.
I am deeply worried about the position of those who are not called to speak on Second Reading, and those who are not appointed as members of Standing Committees. I accept that certain clauses of Finance Bills are debated on the Floor of the House, but in general such Members will be able to table amendments, or speak about a part of a Bill that concerns them, their constituents or their constituencies, only on Report. I fear that the programming of legislation will seriously restrict Back Benchers' ability to express themselves.

Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I will, but for the last time because time is short.

Mr. Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and also for announcing his candidature. We are all

paying particular attention to what he is saying about parliamentary procedure. Would he care to offer an opinion on the failure of Back-Bench members of his party to attend Select Committees, and to take part in a key element of the parliamentary process—scrutiny of the Executive?

Mr. Winterton: I was going to raise that, on the basis of my experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. Our Committee does not have a full complement of members, because the House decided that there should not be a full complement at this stage. Let me add, however, that four Labour Members are currently conspicuous by their absence. Unfortunately, one of my colleagues is also an infrequent attender, but I have received an accurate report that one Member—although still on the Committee—has not attended for more than a year. I understand that the Government Whips have told him that he need not turn up. As yet, however, the usual channels—those representing the establishment in the House—have not replaced him, or others. For instance, the absence of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who has had responsibilities outside the House in relation to football, is very noticeable.
I do not make the accusation that all Labour Committee members who have not turned up have done so because they are not working. One distinguished new Member cannot turn up because he sits on another Select Committee which he considers more important than the Procedure Committee. It is, in fact, the Public Accounts Committee, whose importance I must acknowledge.
If we are not to make the position of Back Benchers totally irrelevant except in the context of voting, we must keep their opportunities in mind. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is present. As a member of the Liaison Committee, I fully backed its report entitled "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". It is important to establish an alternative career structure for those who are prepared to devote a great deal of time, energy and commitment to Select Committees—and, in particular, to Chairmen of Select Committees, who undertake an immense amount of work without any additional staff or remuneration. It is clear that, if that is to happen, the usual channels must not dictate the membership of Select Committees, or have such a powerful influence on the appointment of Chairmen.
I have personal experience in this regard. I believe that my party behaved disgracefully back in 1992. The Liaison Committee, which is concerned with who chairs Select Committees, has sought to redress the balance, and to ensure that Back Benchers have a meaningful purpose and a meaningful job in the future.

Helen Jones: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who presented his job application, but I want to make a few remarks from the other end of the spectrum.
I am a recently elected Member of the House, but I am nevertheless conscious of what a privilege it is to be here and of the duty that the House has to carry out proper scrutiny and to hold the Government to account. Those rights were hard fought for and dearly won. I am particularly conscious that our ancestors, especially those


of Labour Members, had to put up with a great deal and had to make many sacrifices for us to be represented in Parliament. We should bear that in mind, and the fact that the right to representation was fought every step of the way by the ancestors of Conservative Members. It is because I take the rights and privileges of this place very seriously that I believe the Chamber should address issues of real concern to our constituents.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Helen Jones: If the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, I shall give way later.
The Chamber should be a cockpit of democracy. Sadly, that has not been the case today. We have not addressed the issues of real concern to people in the country. The official Opposition have missed the opportunity to do so. The Leader of the Opposition proved once again that he is still stuck in the sixth form. He wants to be the leading light of the school debating society rather than a serious politician. [Interruption.]
What does the debate tell us about the priorities of the Conservative party? Is it concerned about the future of agriculture? Clearly not, because it wiped that subject off the agenda. [Interruption.] Will we have a chance to debate its latest education policy? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is doing all right. She does not need any other voices.

Helen Jones: I always appreciate the support of my hon. Friends, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Will we have a chance to debate the Opposition's new education policy? Clearly not, but perhaps that is wise bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) let slip about primary schools selecting their intake. What about manufacturing industry?

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Jones: No, the hon. Gentleman has had several goes. I want to proceed if I may.
Do the official Opposition want to debate manufacturing industry or the national health service? No. Instead, we have had from them a bout of navel gazing brought on by a tantrum because they objected to the statement on the Government's annual report. They decided to stamp their collective feet. Last year they threw a hissy fit because there was not a statement on the Government's annual report. That says a lot about them.
Perhaps we can move on from the tantrums and, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, consider how the Opposition have managed to hold the Government to account by having a look at their record. Opposition Members have quoted the Norton report and have rightly referred to the need for an effective Opposition and proper debate in the House. Is that what Opposition Members did

when in government? Of course not. They guillotined Bill after Bill. They functioned so well in what their motion calls
the essential…link between citizen and government
that they introduced the poll tax. They guillotined that Bill. That was the biggest example ever of a Government not being in tune with their own people.
There is always a possibility that the sinners have repented and have now accepted the need for parliamentary scrutiny, and are beavering away in Parliament.

Mr. Rowe: Do I get the impression that the hon. Lady thinks that guillotines are a bad idea if we are to call a Government to account? If so, how does she explain the present Government's record in that respect?

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who said in a recent speech that it is worth considering the programming and timetabling of Bills. This is an Opposition debate, and they are talking about calling Government to account, so it is only right that we consider their record.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Jones: No. As I said, the hon. Gentleman has had several goes.
Do Opposition Members turn up and vote so as to hold the Government to account? Many of them do not. As has been said, of the top 114 places, all but one are occupied by Labour Members. Conservative Members tell us that they are off pursuing their outside interests because that contributes to the debate. I will believe that when I see them stacking shelves in supermarkets, working in factories or in call centres. Then I would believe that they were doing that to gain experience of the real world, but not until then.
If Conservative Members are not in the Division Lobby, perhaps they are on Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) rightly quoted the Leader of the Opposition on the need to make Select Committees stronger. The only thing I can say is that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should communicate that view to his Back Benchers. He could start with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who wrote a pamphlet on this subject, in which he said that
too much of the Select Committee system is worthy but also ignored.
He should know, because he spent most of the 1998–99 Session ignoring it. As we have heard, he managed to attend only seven out of 36 meetings of the Select Committee on Public Administration. His hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) did even better. He managed to grace us with his presence on only one occasion.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: As the hon. Lady seems not to have notified my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) that she intended to raise his name in the debate, she should be aware that he was sitting on the Finance Bill Standing Committee, which was a great commitment of time. If she had been present often enough, she would know that he has already explained that to the House.

Helen Jones: The hon. Member for Chichester was present, but attaches so much importance to this debate


that he is no longer here. I understand that he did not always attend the Standing Committee either. I do not believe that his membership of that Committee accounts for all his absences.
As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) refers to other Committees, let us consider them. We have already heard about the Opposition's record on the Care Standards Bill, even though they chose to keep us voting in the House. I want to be charitable to them, so perhaps we should consider their record on delegated legislation. Conservative Members frequently tell us that there is not enough opportunity for the House to scrutinise delegated legislation. To prove that, on Tuesday night they decided to call votes on all the motions dealing with delegated legislation. That is their perfect right, and I do not contest that.
However, what did they do when those orders were in Committee and how much time did they spend scrutinising them? They spent 58 minutes on the draft Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000, 38 minutes on the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 63) on the Invest to Save Grant, and a grand total of 23 minutes on the two orders taken together dealing with the transfer of functions to Wales. If the Opposition were really serious about holding the Government to account, they would have done so in the correct place when those orders were debated in Standing Committee, but we know very well that they are not serious.
We have seen the same pattern repeated in the Chamber time and again. On Opposition days, there are vast acres of green space on the Conservative Benches. At Education and Employment questions last week, there were so few Opposition Members that even those on their Front Bench looked embarrassed. They are not serious about holding the Government to account, and they never have been.
We need to debate issues such as how to improve the performance of the House and the Select Committee system. I believe that the Select Committee system needs to be strengthened, but the Opposition are not interested in those issues. They are only interested in making cheap, political debating points. If they want us to take seriously their views about improving the scrutiny role of Parliament, they must first use the means that are open to them, but they are not doing that.

6 pm

Mr. William Cash: I looked up some references to the questions that arise in relation to this debate and I came across the following quotations. In the reign of Henry III, it was said:
The parliament moderateth the king's prerogative, and nothing grows to abuse, but this house has power to treat it.
In the 18th century, Dunning's version read:
The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
The real issue at the heart of this debate is not merely questions about the procedures of the House, but the craven attitude of Members of Parliament and how they give way to the power and influence of the Executive instead of relying on their own opinions as elected representatives. They neglect the influence that they could exert if they were prepared to do so. It is incumbent on all of us to remember that as individuals—whether the Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister or ordinary Member of

Parliament—the ultimate test is whether we are prepared to take our own decisions and not be pushed around by other people, often in the pursuit of preferment or patronage.
Regrettably, on several occasions, people who could have changed the course of events have, for one reason or another, declined to do so. One example occurred in the Maastricht debates. Nottingham university produced a confidential survey of opinion of Back Benchers and others in the aftermath of those debates. The survey was not organised by Eurosceptics but was partially Government-funded, independent research. It transpired that 60 per cent. of those who had voted with the Government did not want to vote for the Maastricht treaty. That debate and subsequent debates of similar importance, which go to the heart of how we govern ourselves, give some indication of the necessity for all of us to consider the extent to which we simply follow what the Whips decree.
It is not only a question of the Whips. Should not Ministers who have a profound disagreement with their Government resign? I pay tribute to those members of this Government who have resigned—there have been several—and to others in past Conservative Governments who have done so. However, such resignations are not as frequent as I would like.
We should also think hard about the way in which the organisation of the House affects Committees. We have heard about the recommendations of the Liaison Committee on Select Committees, which I thoroughly endorse and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will take a strong view on those recommendations. We might also usefully improve the value of the opinions and judgments of individual Members of Parliament in Standing Committees. It is right that if a Government have made an express manifesto commitment to a Bill, they should expect it to get a Second Reading. However, when the Standing Committee addresses the nuts and bolts of how a Bill will work, it is a different matter.
I have sat on many Standing Committees, some of which—such as that considering the Broadcasting Act 1990—went on for six months or so. So few amendments are ever accepted against the wishes of the Government Whips that it is worth asking whether we should have a freer and more flexible arrangement in Committee, with the re-imposition of the Whip on Report, after the Government has had an opportunity to reflect on the opinions formed in the free judgment of the members of the Committee. Under such a system, Members of Parliament would feel more confident about their role and, at the same time, the legislation would more truly reflect not only the exhortations of the Whips—or the desire of the Prime Minister or Cabinet Minister responsible for the Bill—but the genuine opinions of Members of Parliament. That is why we are elected to this House.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) mentioned our ancestors. One of mine was John Bright and I am sure that nobody would suggest that anyone who came from a family of his independence of mind would willingly accept the criticism that we are Lobby fodder and merely represent the interests of the landed gentry. If


one considers the great issues of the past 200 years, such as the Reform Act 1867, tariff reform, home rule, the India Acts of the 1930s or appeasement—

Mr. Tony McNulty: Or Maastricht.

Mr. Cash: Yes, and I would include the treaty of Amsterdam and what is to come on the treaty of Nice. On all those great issues, which were the defining moments of our political development in the past 200 years, the one characteristic which stood out, and which represented the reality of the strength of Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive—whether or not the parties were divided, which they often were—was that it was those people who stood out from the crowd and spoke their minds who created the circumstances for change on those issues. In that way, we moved forward to a more democratic system of government over the past 200 years.
The Whips have an important role to play, which may be necessary because of the need to organise business. However, at the heart of the debate lies the quotation from "Julius Caesar" by Shakespeare:
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
When we consider the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, it is important for all of us to remember that the question of whether we truly represent our constituents, and the country as a whole in the national interest, depends on whether we are prepared to stand up to the attacks made on us by others and the power and influence that is brought to bear by an Executive that wants its own way, but which should not be allowed to get away with it so easily.

Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I know what is coming.

Mr. MacShane: This has been a rich and rewarding debate, which we have all enjoyed. However, not many hon. Members have been present. I wonder whether more hon. Members might have attended if a list of speakers had been published. Now that the secrets of Fatima have been revealed, cannot the Speaker's list be made public before debates take place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know anything about a list.

Mr. Paul Goggins: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It seems that at times our discussion has suffered from the same difficulties that the Opposition face, which is a confusion between the distinct functions of scrutiny and opposition. The media often portray these functions as though they are the same. For example, they suggest that only Labour Members who defy the Whip are truly carrying out their scrutiny function.
I am not embarrassed to say—indeed, I am proud to say—that the people of Wythenshawe and Sale, East did not elect me to oppose the Government. Instead,

they elected me to support the Government. They voted for me because they wanted young people who had been thrown on the scrap heap to have the opportunity to work, because they believe in a free national health service and because they want to see higher standards of numeracy and literacy. Of course, they expect me to do my best to ensure that legislation stands up, as it were, and works in practice.
I take great exception to the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who questioned whether it was possible—in fact, he said that it was impossible—for a loyal Member of the Government party effectively to operate his scrutiny role.
There is a large international airport in my constituency, and I sought reassurances on air safety during the passage of the recent Transport Bill. As a member at the time of the Select Committee on Social Security, following a controversial inquiry I joined my Committee colleagues in strongly recommending to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the working families tax credit was introduced it should still be possible for non-working partners to be able to claim that tax credit, as they had previously done with family credit.
As a member of the Select Committee, I was proud to be involved in the innovative inquiry into the draft Bill relating to pension sharing on divorce. The Committee made 32 recommendations and suggested 107 amendments. I think that we played our part in ensuring that when the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill was considered a year later, it was a more robust piece of legislation. That was because of the Committee's pre-legislative scrutiny.

Mr. Hope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate is an admission of failure? The Tories have been incapable of providing an effective Opposition. Like a bad workman who blames his tools, the Opposition are suggesting scrutiny mechanisms that would not be effective.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was far too long an intervention.

Mr. Goggins: It may have been too long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend moved directly to the next part of my speech.
The Tories find great difficulty in opposition and they are hopeless in that role. Of course, the Government do not have the devaluation crisis that faced the Wilson Government. We do not have the trade union disquiet of the 1970s or the urban riots of the 1980s. For three years in office, we can claim credit for 1 million extra jobs, higher achievements in schools, higher incomes for the poorest pensioners and billions of extra pounds that are being used to help reduce the problems of children who previously had been consigned to poverty.
The problem for the Opposition is that they are unable to mount any credible opposition to our policies. They keep trying but that does not wash with the electorate. They were against the minimum wage and they had to back off. They had a tax guarantee and again they had to back off. I am sure that when they have finished whingeing about the new deal, they will similarly have to back off.
Having abandoned the role of constructive opposition, the Tories seek to claim the high moral ground of scrutiny. However, if we scratch the surface, we find that there is little substance. For example, there were the schoolboy antics on Tuesday night. Between midnight and I am the House divided five times. As I have already made clear, I am happy to stay in the House and vote for orders that will help the Government to deliver their programme. I accept that the Opposition have every right to oppose. However, we were dividing on measures that had previously been debated in Standing Committee.
It is worth considering the quality of the scrutiny that took place in Committee. On the two matters relating to Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, three of the five Tory Members were absent, including their Front-Bench spokesperson, who, according to the Whip, was carrying out other duties. Presumably, they were more important duties than scrutinising legislation in his area of responsibility.
On the measure relating to local government finance, four Tory Members attended the Committee. They did not dissent from an order that relates to the £45 million invest-to-save initiative and important grants to improve health and social care. I am happy for the record to show that the Opposition were against making such grants, but let us not dress that up as democracy or scrutiny. At best, that sort of nonsense means that we lose a little sleep. At worst, it makes Parliament a laughing stock.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) in urging the Opposition to pay close attention to paragraph (3) on page 6 of the Norton report, which refers to the core functions of Parliament. The third core function outlined by Lord Norton is the provision of "credible opposition". The report recommends that Select Committees should offer an alternative career path to ministerial office and that appointments to Select Committees should be taken out of the hands of the Whips.
In my book, it is not what we say that counts but what we do. Perhaps it was thoughtful of the Opposition to bring forward this debate on 13 July. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will know that this is the eighth anniversary of the day when the Conservative party threw him off the Select Committee on Health. Those who were Members of this place then will remember better than I do the trumped up charges that he faced, having been a member of the Committee for three consecutive terms. It seems that relevant experience did not count for very much.
During the debate that took place on departmental Select Committees on that day—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will be interested in this—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked Sir Marcus Fox, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, why Sir Nicholas Fairbairn was a member of two Select Committees. Sir Marcus replied:
The answer is quite simple:…he happens to be a friend of mine.—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 915.]
How can anyone take seriously proposals from the Conservative party that there should be an alternative career structure on Select Committees when events and comments illustrate the involvement of the Opposition Whips? During that week in July 1992, The Times stated:
The extent to which committees are manipulated by the Tory Whips casts a cloud over the independence of the select committees system.

Without credible policies, the Tories seek in vain the high moral ground of scrutiny. Of course the relationship between Parliament and the Executive is an important one. However, if the best that my Tory opponent can offer at the next election is an extra 10 minutes for Prime Minister's questions, I shall be more than happy to take him or her on with the continuing commitment from Labour to create jobs and modernise public services.

Mr. John Hayes: First, before the substantive part of my speech, I shall deal with what the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) said about me. I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that if Government Back Benchers were doing their job properly, we would have less to fear from a Government with a large majority because they would be contributing to the accountability that is so important to the health of our democracy. That is what I said, as the record will show.
The constitution is important and Parliament is important. To say that would once have been regarded as self-evident, but no longer. A significant number of people who are involved in politics do not believe in their heart that Parliament is at the heart of our democracy or our nation, or
at the heart of our political system,
as Lord Norton rightly said in his recent report.

Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman talks of the primacy that he places on Parliament in scrutinising the Executive. The record of Members' participation in Divisions shows that he is in 538th position.

Mr. Hayes: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has done so much research on me. I am flattered that he thinks that I am so important. I am delighted also that he has had the opportunity to intervene in the debate, because the Library figures reveal that, since he was elected in 1997, he has spoken in the Chamber on only 42 occasions. I have spoken 162 times. In fact, I barely recognised the hon. Gentleman when he came into the Chamber.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: No, I must make some progress.
The fact that Parliament is pivotal to our democracy is a matter that all Members of this House should hold dear. It is a great irony that some hon. Members—I speak in particular of Labour Members, although it is also true of some Members of the other opposition parties—do not regard Parliament in that way. Their view is summed up by the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who made it clear that he no longer believes that representative democracy has an important part to play in our political future. He believes that it is invidious to have adversarial debate in this place and he said so during a brief period as a Back Bencher.
While this is clearly part of a process—indeed, the Leader of the Opposition made that clear in his opening remarks—that has continued for a considerable number of years, it is true to say that this Government have exacerbated and accelerated the decline of the importance


of Parliament. That is partly because so-called big-tent politics are injurious to the genuine exchange, development and scrutiny not merely of policies but of ideas themselves. Politicians of all parties should regard such a threat with the greatest suspicion.
When elected to this House, every Member's solemn duty is to pursue and promote the public good and to defend the national interest. Surely that is something that we can all share. I heard Labour Members claiming this afternoon that they are the only Members who come to this House with vision or with good intentions and commitment, but I know that they must realise that that is not so. Every hon. Member has that duty and most take it very seriously, regardless of the party of which he or she is a member.
Edmund Burke summed up the matter best when he said that a Member
is in Parliament to support his opinion of the public good, and does not form his opinion in order to get into Parliament or to continue in it.
Breached in practice more often than not, that definition was at least preserved in theory until Tony Blair became Prime Minister. Soon after he did—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the conventions of the House.

Mr. Hayes: When the Prime Minister came to power, that convention was put in real jeopardy. There is no doubt that the Government have preferred to use the media to launch their policies and argue their case than to use Parliament.

Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: In a moment.
Most typical of the decline that I described is the Prime Minister's personal performance in this House. I am speaking in particular of Prime Minister's questions. My research reveals that on countless occasions the right hon. Gentleman has—I can only assume through ignorance because it would be unparliamentary to suggest that it was anything else—given inaccurate information [Interruption.] I repeat that he must have done so in ignorance, of course. On even more occasions, he has failed to answer questions. Indeed, he has failed to answer more than half the questions put to him in Question Time since he began to lead the country. That is an abuse of Parliament.
That rare occasion when hon. Members can question the Prime Minister in the House is itself pivotal to good and healthy democracy and should be respected by Prime Ministers, as it was by previous Prime Ministers. [Interruption.] I am not saying that they did not use Prime Minister's questions to advocate their case and put their arguments, but they also took seriously the need at least to attempt to give a straight answer to a straight question. That is not the case with the present Prime Minister.
Parliament is—[Interruption.] That was a pause for effect. Parliament is desperately important to the people. When the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) talks of Parliament having to reflect the everyday needs of the people of her constituency, does she not understand that we, the elected representatives, speak for those very people?
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say that he wants to speak more frequently directly to the people—perhaps, through referendums, certainly through the media and today he told us through letters that are sent to Downing street—because the people can speak directly to the Government, hold them to account and make their judgment on them only once in every five years at an election.
In practical terms, holding the Government to account is the job of elected representatives. It is representative democracy that is at stake in this debate and in this Parliament.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a part of that holding to account must be done by Select Committees? What are his feelings about the fact that Labour members of the Education and Employment Committee have tried to gag Opposition Members, such as me, to prevent us scrutinising witnesses on the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attack on our leading universities and the fact that this is denying students the opportunity to go there?

Mr. Hayes: I note from a debate that took place in 1981, which reviewed the work of Select Committees, that when they were established it was made clear that their role was to take evidence based on judgments that were unfettered by the considerations of the Executive or the concerns of Government and to produce guidance and issue opinion that reflect not what the Government want for the nation, but what the Select Committee believes is right for the nation.
When the Prime Minister would not give evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, he quoted precedent. In fact, the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), gave evidence to a Select Committee. There is therefore a precedent for Prime Ministers giving evidence to Select Committees and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is right to say that they have an important role to play. The Norton committee advocated strengthening that role.

Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: No, I will not, because time is pressing.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place and I think that we are all disappointed that we have not had a contribution from him. Perhaps better than most Members of the House, the right hon. Gentleman understands the role of Parliament in holding the Executive to account. He said in an early-day motion that Members have a duty to pursue their convictions and a responsibility for maintaining the role of this House as a democratic legitimate body
holding all governments to account, having been elected by the people for that purpose.
He went on to say:
I believe that that is the right responsibility for all of us,—[Official Report, 9 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 1042.]
regardless of which party we serve. Tonight, we have an opportunity, in considering this matter, to put aside our party interests and look at this institution as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of the people—something of which we should all be justly proud.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. I call the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).

Sir George Young: I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), but a moment ago he said that this had been a "rich and rewarding" debate. He said so on a bogus point of order, which I think prevented him from taking part, but it has been a good debate, with the temperature rising and falling. Most contributions have focused on the key issue—the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. Some of the contributions have not quite hit the target, but on the whole the House has responded to the challenge of confronting an issue that concerns all of us as Members of Parliament.
I regret the fact that more hon. Members could not speak in the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said, the Government broke with convention and took up Opposition time with a statement that did not have to be made today. The fact that they chose to do so underlined one of the arguments that we have been trying to make through this debate: that, when it is convenient for them, the Government disregard the conventions of the House and erode the rights of the Opposition and Back Benchers.
Many of those who contributed spoke warmly about the Norton report. Anyone who is concerned about the issue will be grateful to the Norton committee for a nonpartisan, objective analysis—[Laughter.] Oh yes, hon. Members should read the report. It is a non-partisan, objective analysis of the transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive. It comes up with some concrete proposals to reverse that process. The following sentences from the report get the message over
Undermine the authority of Parliament and ultimately you undermine the authority of Government. The more Government seeks to achieve autonomy in making public policy, the harder it has to work to maintain its capacity to achieve desired outcomes. The more it distances itself from Parliament, the more it undermines popular consent for the system of government.
That sums up the message from Norton.

Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: May I make a bit of progress?
What I found worrying about the Prime Minister's speech was that it became clear that he does not accept that there is a problem. It was a pity that he could not stay to listen to the contribution by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who said that the issues raised by the debate go to the heart of the democratic process. Indeed, our ability to represent our constituents on all the issues that have been raised—on jobs, health, education and law and order—and our ability to hold the Government to account on those key issues is undermined if power has transferred from Parliament to the Executive and the Government are less accountable. I fear that, in his speech, the Prime Minister failed to see the wood for the trees.
The Prime Minister referred, as does the Government amendment, to constitutional reform. I felt that he was perhaps misguided to refer to some of the proposals to tilt the terms of trade back as piddling points. Those were serious propositions to arrest a problem that has gone on for some time. He spoke about modernising Parliament—his favourite word. My view is that Parliament does not need so much modernising as strengthening.
The Prime Minister and the Government amendment seek refuge behind constitutional reform. It refers to some of the things that the Government have done. I am not sure that that provides a convincing alibi. A fortnight ago, we had a much-delayed debate on Lords reform, in which the Government were criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House for shooting first and asking questions later, and for having no clear timetable or plan for the key second stage of reform. On devolution, we have criticised the Government for the instability and inequity of the settlement for England, and we have come up with proposals, endorsed by the Norton commission and by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for changing the procedures of the House for English and Welsh Bills.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: May I make a bit more progress? Then I shall probably give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)
We have debated the Government's approach to the voting system, where there is the small matter of a broken manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on an alternative to first past the post. We learned that the pledge was not to be kept not because the House was told so, but because the Prime Minister chose to tell viewers of the Frost programme. We learned from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the prospect of an alternative voting system, which to our surprise is even less proportionate than any other system and has as its consequence—indeed, as its objective—the removal of as many remaining Conservative Members of Parliament as possible, so the Government's approach to constitutional reform is not a happy one.

Mr. Chisholm: Is not the significance of the constitutional reform that the Labour Executive gave up a vast amount of power through devolution, whereas the Conservative Executive between 1979 and 1997 concentrated more power in itself than any other Government in British history?

Sir George Young: The language was the language of devolution. The reality was the retention of central control. We saw that when it came to choosing the First Secretary in Wales. We have seen it all over the place. The language is devolution, but No. 10 wants to keep a close grip on what happens.
I was grateful to the leader of the Liberal Democrats for agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Government are too big and too powerful and that there are not enough independently minded people here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon captured the mood of the House in a way that the Prime Minister did not. He referred to the decline in popularity of all Members of Parliament and the decline in the status of the House. He said that the House must not be putty in the hands of the Executive and emphasised the need for reform. He said that the House and Back Benchers had lost power and that they should seek to repatriate power to the House and away from the Executive.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) was one of a growing number of Labour Back Benchers who voiced their support during the debate


for the Liaison Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) reminded us that we have a good system, but that the abuse of the House has accelerated over recent years. He focused on the Chamber, and on restructuring the time in the Chamber to make more effective use of our time and to make the Chamber again the focal point of the nation's interest in politics—proposals to make the Chamber more topical and more relevant. He was rightly cautious about consensus and rightly criticised the current procedures for dealing with estimates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) confirmed that, in his view, after 17 years in the House, the powers of the Executive had increased and that there had been a decline in the authority of the House. He was concerned about the proposals of the Modernisation Committee that would limit the power of the Opposition. He advocated the proposal for more senior people in the House to be elected.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) made the point that a number of hon. Members have made: Parliament does not use its powers to the full and it is up to Members of Parliament to repatriate, if they so wish, some of the powers that have gone to the Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) favoured a bridge-building approach to the strengthening of Parliament and rightly made the point that attendance in the Chamber is not a good proxy for activity in Parliament. He also said that Back Benchers can be badly organised and therefore constitute less of a threat to Government.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is a co-author of the Norton report, for his balanced and sensible speech, and his determination not to be distracted by some of the obsessive interventions from Labour Members. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) made a rather unworthy contribution and has developed a new constitutional theory that the Government should hold the Opposition to account. I suspect that, if he looked at the voting record in the previous Parliament, he would find that Government Members voted more often than Opposition Members. There are all sorts of reasons for that. Any Government need to protect their majority. Often, the Government will vote against the Opposition amendment and the Liberal Democrat amendment, whereas the Opposition parties will vote on their preferred one. There are many reasons for Government Members voting more often than Opposition Members.
The democratic process is not something that happens once every four or five years at a general election. It is also about holding Government to account between elections. There are signs that the Government have forgotten about that, relying on their majority at the last election to keep them out of trouble and focusing all their efforts on trying to get in again next time.
The concerns expressed at the beginning of the debate by the Leader of the Opposition have been shared

throughout the debate by a number of Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said recently:
The more I look at this place, the more I fear that the House of Commons has surrendered its responsibility for representing people and has become a queue for office or for people hoping to get on the "Today" programme.—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 627.]
In response, his fertile mind drafted the "Modernisation of the Premiership" Bill, which somehow never reached the statute book.
Between elections, the Government are accountable to the House. If policy changes are announced outside the House, they are not subjected to the critical examination by Members that they should be. Those announcements should be tested where it matters, not launched from a comfortable sofa with some tame questioner at a location of the Government's choice, with the questioner selected not by Madam Speaker, but by Alastair Campbell.

Mr. Rowe: Before my right hon. Friend finishes his excellent speech, would he care to say a little more about the enormous extension of direct patronage—one of the instruments with which the Government increasingly control Parliament?

Sir George Young: There was a recent report, the Fritchie report, on health service appointments, which I hope we can debate in the near future.
On the issue of presentation, it was interesting to read what Peter Riddell said a few days ago in The Times, that many of the Government's problems are precisely because of their focus on presentation and their determination always to dominate the media battle and headlines every day.
May I ask the Leader of the House about the Liaison Committee's report? Her responsibilities extend to both sides of the House. I wonder whether, on reflection, she accepts that she was wrong to dismiss the Liaison Committee's recommendation on Select Committees. Paragraph 7 of the Government's response states:
The Government are not convinced that a change to the current system is needed.
The Liaison Committee, with a majority of Labour Members, believed that a change was needed. Opposition Members are inclined to agree.
The Leader of the House said that the House can have a free vote on the issue. May I ask that, when we have a debate, we have a debate on a substantive motion, so that the House is enabled to express itself clearly on this issue and take a decision? If the Government want to counter some of the criticisms that we have made today, the Leader of the House could do no better than to admit that the Government were wrong and say that she will think again.
Substantial criticisms have been made against the Government in this debate, and perhaps I can summarise the charge sheet. The ability of Parliament to monitor legislation and to control the Executive has been reduced. Select Committees have been prejudiced by their reports being leaked in advance to the Government. Our tradition of Ministers being served by an independent and professional civil service has been injured. The convention that taxpayers' money should not be used for party advantage has been damaged. The dissemination


of information about Government—the oxygen of democracy—is no longer freely available to Parliament, but is being distributed to favoured channels. Parliament is being confronted with too many badly drafted Bills, which are being driven through with inadequate scrutiny. Cabinet Government has been weakened, and special advisers have too much power.
The Opposition do not say that all those problems began in 1997, although I believe that they have got a lot worse since then. I think that it would have been optimistic of us to have expected the Government to plead guilty as charged. However, what has been worrying is that the Government apparently do not accept that there is a problem. Unlike almost every other commentator, they either deny that the process of power transfer has occurred, or assert that it does not matter.
Therefore, the key question that I ask myself at the end of this debate is whether it has identified any common loyalty to the institution that we all belong to that transcends the party loyalty that secured our entry. I also ask myself whether, if there is that common loyalty, there is a will to exercise the powers more effectively.
On the first question, there have been many speeches, from both sides of the House, indicating that there is now concern about the issue that we have raised today. The hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) all conceded that there is a matter of concern here. I believe that there is now a recognition that Parliament needs to get its act together.
I was interested in the proposition from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon that Parliament should now address the issue in a more structured way. I personally doubt whether much is going to happen in the remainder of this Parliament. I think that it will fall to the next Administration to follow through this debate.
Opposition Members are pledged to get the balance right, to give authority back to the place from which we all derive our legitimacy. That is why we have chosen this debate. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than if the Leader of the House responded positively to the case that has been made today. If she does not, people will conclude that my party is the party that can best respond to the challenge that we haw debated today.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): This debate has been not only interesting, but—more than that—unexpectedly revealing. Conservative Members have claimed that Parliament's ability to scrutinise the Executive has in some unprecedented way been diminished since the election of this Government, and that, consequently, not just Parliament but democracy itself is endangered. That is what they claim justifies the truly unprecedented proposals that they are now putting to set tests for us—to put pressure on us as a Government—which have never been set for any Government in this party's history, and which they certainly could never have passed.
Conservative Members pray in aid the Norton commission report as justification for their case. However, there are at least two fundamental flaws in that argument. The first is that it comes from a party which—as my

hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said—after 18 years in government left us a Parliament in which hon. Members still wore a top hat to raise a point of order in this place, and in which the other place was in the permanent control of the Conservative party—not least because 750 people were entitled to sit in it on the basis of heredity. The Conservative party's credentials as a reforming party are therefore not just shallow but non-existent.
The second fundamental flaw in Conservative Members' argument is that it begs the question whether they leapt into this debate before they had read the Norton report. A little surprisingly, Professor Lord Norton and his colleagues themselves seem to have overlooked the fact that many of the worthwhile changes that they recommend have already been made—made by this Government, and not infrequently opposed by Conservative Members.
Conservative Members call for an improvement in scrutiny of European legislation. Although I acknowledge that Conservative Members acknowledge that the Government have substantially extended the House's opportunity to scrutinise that important part of our work, they do not point out that, under the rules and Standing Orders that we inherited from them, large parts of European Union business were outwith the scrutiny of this House.
Professor Norton suggests that at least some debates should terminate earlier in the day—perhaps at 8 or 9 o'clock. I hope that it will not have escaped the House's attention that, when we made just such proposals a week ago, Conservative Members attacked them as a denial of democracy—as they have repeatedly done today.
Professor Norton recommends more effective provision of resources for hon. Members. We have been trying for months to get Conservative Members to agree to consider those issues. Norton calls, too, for greater support for research, both for the Opposition and for Select Committees. As I have already said to the House, support for Select Committees is a matter for the House of Commons Commission. However, on the whole, although I am only one member of that body, I am not unsympathetic to that proposal.
As for the notion that the Opposition should receive still further funding, it is an interesting proposal. It comes oddly, though, from hon. Members who—while complaining that the Government have increased the number of special advisers whom we employ—never acknowledge, not even for a second, that we have almost trebled the money that the Opposition receive for staff to work alongside and back up their Front Benchers.
The proposal comes particularly oddly from Conservative Members when we look at their record in government. In the previous Parliament, the Short money settlement had not been updated for five years—a period in which inflation had continually been in double figures. Nevertheless, that devotee of democracy, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the current shadow Chancellor—I do not see him in the Chamber—resisted our claim that funding for the Opposition should at the very least be inflation-proofed, and tried to impose a below inflation settlement.

Mr. MacShane: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Leader of the Opposition receives a higher salary than


the Prime Minister? Does she know of any other country in the world where the Government give more money to the Leader of the Opposition than to the Head of Government? With all the money that they have from Lord Sleaze of Belize and, now, from Mr. Paul Sykes, why are we so generous with them?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not certain whether the Leader of the Opposition receives more money than the Prime Minister, but I am certainly well aware that he receives more than I do. It is also certainly true that the Leader of the Opposition draws the full salary awarded, whereas members of the Cabinet do not.
Before I leave the point about the inflation proofing of Short money, let me pay tribute, quite sincerely, to my predecessor, Lord Newton, for accepting and fighting for our case that inflation proofing at least was a democratic due. There was certainly no three times increase for us under the Tories.
Lord Norton further recommends that we debate more Select Committee reports. That is precisely what the opportunities for scrutiny in Westminster Hall have offered—200 extra opportunities for debate in all, and four times as many opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. Although I hear noises off from the Opposition Front Bench, let me tell the House that as soon as those opportunities became available, twice as many right hon. and hon. Members applied for Adjournment debates, because they knew that they stood a much better chance of getting them. Indeed, under this Government, 64 Select Committee reports have already been debated, whereas in the whole of the last five-year Parliament we debated only 50.

Dr. Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that when the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Select Committee on Environmental Audit were discussed in Westminster Hall, the only Members present representing the official Opposition were the Chairmen of those Select Committees? All the Back Benchers who participated in those debates were Labour or Liberal Democrat Members. That scarcely demonstrates a real concern about scrutiny through Select Committees.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, to which there is clearly no answer from the Opposition.
Lord Norton's committee recommends the creation of an independent statistical office—the Government have done that. It suggests better access for the media in this place. That is precisely what the Modernisation Committee which we set up recommended to the House authorities and it has been done—sweeping away petty and grave restrictions that have lasted for many years.
Lord Norton recommends that the House should be prepared to carry over Bills from one Session to another. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that he believes that
this should be the norm, not the exception.
The Modernisation Committee has recommended that, but the Conservative party has been most reluctant to accept the idea and has done so only once. Lord Norton makes a number of other proposals for extra salaries for Select

Committee Chairmen and other measures designed to make attendance at Select Committees more attractive to Members.
Who are the Members who fail to take part in this important work of scrutiny? The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), who commissioned a study of attendance at Select Committees. Of the 17 departmental Select Committees generally recognised as monitoring the principal Departments of State in the 1998–99 Session, on average Tory Members attended only some 61 per cent. of those sessions, compared with 67 per cent. attendance by the Liberal Democrats and 71 per cent. by Labour Members. Although I recognise the point made in the debate by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), membership of Select Committees is proportionate, so the same burden falls on Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not have much time. I shall give way later if there is time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mrs. Beckett: Lord Norton draws on the proposals of the Liaison Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot tolerate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) shouting during the right hon. Lady's speech.

Mr. David Drew: He has only just come in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not just come in and I know how long the hon. Gentleman has been sitting there.

Mrs. Beckett: The proposals made by the Liaison Committee are indeed far-reaching and profound—so far-reaching and profound that they raise questions as to whether they would create a two-tier membership in the House.
Although I understood the debate to be about the Norton committee report and not the Liaison Committee report, which will be the subject of a separate debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, asked for the Government's view. He asked whether there would be a free vote on the Liaison Committee report. Indeed, there will. He and other Opposition spokesmen have said that the Opposition will have a free vote too. That is an interesting proposal as I am well aware that many Opposition Members have even stronger reservations about that report than I do. However, we do not know whether that is a promise, a pledge or a guarantee.
Much has been said by Opposition Members about their wish to abjure the influence of the Whips. That comes from the party which in 1996, under the premiership of


the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who spoke with such feeling about the need to strengthen the power of Parliament against the Executive—he is surely a sinner come to repentance—made a Government Whip a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. That was unprecedented.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke about our proposals for what he described as removing the weapon of delay. However, he will remember as clearly as I do that he was a Minister at the Department of Social Security when the then Tory Government first guillotined all discussion on their legislation and then put in an entire new section on widows benefits, the consequences of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been trying to deal with in recent days.
Lord Norton stresses the importance of delegated legislation. The Government share his view, but again Labour Members are the highest attenders at those debates. When we argue—as we do in the most recent Modernisation Committee report—for more effective use of parliamentary time and fewer sittings that are unnecessarily prolonged into the small hours, we get the jibe that Labour Members do not want to be here late; yet more Labour Members take part in votes after 7 o'clock.
The hon Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) showed a more measured understanding and even acceptance of some of the proposals, which were more strongly supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
The debate was also marked by serious contributions from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats—the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron).
Sadly, that cannot be said of the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, in which the right hon. Gentleman showed, as he often does, that neither facts nor figures are his strong point. He complained about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's attendance in the House, yet the record shows that my right hon. Friend has attended all but five of 101 sessions of Prime Minister's Question Time, whereas his predecessor—perfectly properly, on Government business—missed some 47 out of 173. That was a consequence of having Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week instead of once a week.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated—as did other Opposition Members—that the Government's programme was unprecedentedly large. It contains some 39 Bills, but sadly for the right hon. Gentleman, in 11 out of the 18 years of Tory rule there were more Bills than that. The maximum number was 71 Bills, closely followed by 60, which compares very unfavourably with our record.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that there had been an unprecedented number of guillotines, and that is not true either. He claimed numbers that can only include programme motions, although as recently as last week the Conservative party claimed to support the use of programme motions—as did the right hon. Gentleman himself in a speech two years ago, as was pointed out by hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).
We have had a strange debate this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition made a phoney speech based on the totally phoney premise that under this Government we

have seen unprecedentedly bad treatment of the House. The only thing that is unprecedented about this Parliament is the length of time since his party was in opposition—clearly much too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin pointed out, they resent it, and that is what today's debate is all about. It has been a mixture of the pent-up resentment of Conservative Members at seeing a Labour Government in office and their desperate desire to obscure the Government's record. Theirs was a case without honesty and substance. They argued that we could not change Britain for the better, and now they are desperate to pretend that we are not doing so—but we are. Hospitals, jobs, the health service and education have all seen changes for the better.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 304.

Division No. 266]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fearn, Ronnie


Beggs, Roy
Flight, Howard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brand, Dr Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorrie, Donald


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gray, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Green, Damian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Burnett, John
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Hammond, Philip


Cash, William
Harris, Dr Evan


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Harvey, Nick



Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Horam, John



Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, Rt Hon David



Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)



Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)






Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lansley, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Letwin, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Syms, Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maples, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Townend, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Tredinnick, David


Moore, Michael
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Viggers, Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Walter, Robert


Öpik, Lembit
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Paterson, Owen
Whittingdale, John


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Prior, David
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ruffley, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. John Randall and


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradshaw, Ben


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barnes, Harry
Casale, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Cawsey, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chaytor, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coaker, Vernon


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Borrow, David
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coleman, Iain


Bradley Peter (The Wrekin)
Colman Tony





Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy



Cousins, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kemp, Fraser


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kidney, David


Dobbin, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lammy, David


Drew, David
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Drown, Ms Julia
Laxton, Bob


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lepper, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Efford, Clive
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Linton, Martin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fisher, Mark
Lock, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Love, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gardiner, Barry
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heal Mrs Sylvia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Healey, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hesford, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hutton, John



Illsley, Eric
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Snape, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Southworth, Ms Helen


Norris, Dan
Starkey, Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Stoate, Dr Howard


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Purchase Ken
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Radice Rt Hon Giles
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rammell, Bill
Tynan, Bill


Rapson, Syd
Vaz, Keith


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rogers, Allan
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Watts, David


Rowlands, Ted
White, Brian


Roy, Frank
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Sheerman, Barry
Woolas, Phil


Shipley, Ms Debra
Worthington, Tony


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Skinner, Dennis
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Mike Hall and



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 137.

Division No. 267]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron Kevin


Adams Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beard, Nigel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald


Austin, John
Berry, Roger


Banks, Tony
Best, Harold


Barnes, Harry
Betts, Clive





Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blears, Ms Hazel
Follett, Barbara


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Burnett, John
Goggins, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hain, Peter


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cawsey, Ian
Harris, Dr Evan


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harvey, Nick


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chidgey, David
Healey, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Drew, David



Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Edwards, Huw
Kirkwood, Archy


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Lammy, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher






Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rammell, Bill


Linton, Martin
Rapson, Syd


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rendel, David


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Steve
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonnell, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McFall, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stringer, Graham


Meale Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Merron, Gillian
Stunell, Andrew


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Todd, Mark



Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tyler, Paul


Olner, Bill
Tynan, Bill


O'Neill, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Öpik, Lembit
Vis, Dr Rudi


Organ, Mrs Diana
Ward, Ms Claire


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wareing, Robert N


Palmer, Dr Nick
Watts, David


Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Willis, Phil


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Woodward, Shaun


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Woolas, Phil


Prosser, Gwyn
Worthington, Tony


Purchase, Ken






Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Baldry, Tony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Beggs, Roy
Lansley, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Leigh, Edward


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Madel, Sir David


Burns, Simon
Major, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Norman, Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Curry, Rt Hon David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Dorrell Rt Hon Stephen
Robertson, Laurence


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight, Howard
Shepherd, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fox, Dr Liam
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gale, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Garnier, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wells, Bowen


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David



Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)






Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. John Randall and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on carrying out in three years the biggest programme of constitutional reform for a century, including devolution to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, bringing government closer to the people; and welcomes the fundamental reform of the House of Lords and the establishment of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons which has doubled the number of backbench debates and quadrupled the opportunities to debate Select Committee reports as part of the 48 recommendations implemented so far.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) and Order [25 October 1999],
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Business of the House (Football (Disorder) Bill) and the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Football (Disorder) Bill)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, as soon as the proceedings on this Motion have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill shall be read.
I will speak only briefly, as I suspect that the House will want to discuss the substance of the issue in the Second Reading debate that will follow very shortly, if this motion is agreed.
There has been support right across the House for further urgent measures to combat football hooliganism. I am grateful for the advice, ideas and proposals that Members of both Houses have already made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that he wishes to proceed by consensus as far as possible. A draft Bill has been available since last Friday. A number of meetings have been held and the Bill has been improved already as a result.
I have suggested that the House will want to make progress quickly on this matter, while at the same time ensuring adequate scrutiny. The Second Reading debate will give us an important opportunity to make judgments on the degree of consensus and support for the measures that we propose. I look forward to that debate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Opposition share the hon. Gentleman's desire to move on to the substantive business as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will, of course, outline the Opposition's position on the Bill with clarity and vigour.
Although we are far from happy about many of the things that have happened over the past week in the background to the Bill, nevertheless we wish the Second Reading debate to begin soon. We wish it to be a thorough debate, and we want the Bill to be properly and carefully scrutinised on Monday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, as soon as the proceedings on this Motion have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill shall be read.

Football (Disorder) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In my statement on 4 July, I told the House that additional measures were required to prevent a recurrence of the appalling scenes witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000. I outlined what those measures should be and why it was important that they were introduced as soon as possible. However, I pointed out that Members of this House and the other place quite properly take their responsibilities for examining legislation very seriously and recognise the need to combine speed with careful scrutiny.
The next international game for the England football team will be against France in Paris on 2 September. The National Criminal Intelligence Service is of the opinion that this is a high-risk game. I hope that in view of this, right hon. and hon. Members will understand why we need the proposed measure in place before the House rises at the end of this month, if that is at all possible.
To assist the House and the other place, I published this Bill as a preliminary draft on Friday last, and I have made myself available ever since to discuss the proposals with Members of both Houses. A very constructive all-party meeting for Members of both Houses was held on Monday, attended by about 60 peers and Members of this House. In the course of that meeting, among many other constructive comments that were made about the Bill, two specific proposals were made by a senior former Law Lord and by a member of the Opposition, the noble Lord Ackner and the noble Lord Alexander of Weedon. Both their suggestions, as I will explain later, have been incorporated into the Bill as presented. I have received other suggestions for improvement from a number of hon. Friends, and I am giving those active consideration.
The Bill is a considered response to the Euro 2000 experience. The extensive United Kingdom policing operation for the tournament, which I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions, was a success in the terms set for it, which were to prevent known football hooligans from attending that competition. Few of the 1,000 football hooligans known to NCIS were involved. It is a sobering thought that only 30 of the 965 arrests of people from England during Euro 2000 were of people known to NCIS—an agency which dedicates a significant proportion of its time and expertise to monitoring the activities of football hooligans.
Whenever there has been crowd trouble in the recent past, some of those involved were not previously known football hooligans. However, it had been thought that if known hooligans were prevented from attending, the likelihood of wider disturbances would be significantly reduced. During Euro 2000, we had to revise that opinion; the disorder at that tournament was of a different dimension. In the main, it was prompted not by a small core of known football hooligans, but by the xenophobic, racist and offensive behaviour of a significant number of drunken white males, typically aged between 20 and 35, although—as we now know—many of them had previous convictions for violence or disorder.
Recent analysis by NCIS reveals that of the 965 English individuals arrested during the tournament, 391 had previous convictions. That figure—40 per cent.—is not a startling statistic in itself, given that about 30 per cent. of all men have a previous conviction for some offence by the age of 30, as I have previously explained to the House. The difference in this case is that the profile of previous convictions of those arrested in Brussels, Charleroi and the Netherlands is skewed powerfully towards violence and disorder. Of the 391, 133 had convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for possession of an offensive weapon and 122 for criminal damage. I stress that those convictions were, in the main, not football-related.
The Euro 2000 experience may not be unique, but it is the best documented in respect of the profile of arrested English hooligans. As I pointed out, 97 per cent. of those arrested were not convicted or known football hooligans. That is of great importance in framing further legislative measures to tackle the phenomenon.
As Members will have seen from the structure of the Bill, extensive legislation against football disorder has been developed over a 15-year period. That is spelled out in the opening pages of the—as usual—excellent brief provided by the Library. The legislation has progressively widened the powers of the court and the police to deal with the problem. The Bill underlines the fact that the current legal framework has been carefully put in place over the years. However, although the measures currently at the disposal of the police and the courts may be extensive, they were not designed to catch thugs and yobs whose violence and disorderly ways are usually displayed in a non-football setting.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary or those advising him will have studied television and video clips and other evidence. I have not done so. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of the 965 and what proportion of the crowds seemed to be committing what would be criminal offences?

Mr. Straw: NCIS is currently studying the available videos. I have not studied them in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I have seen the television pictures. I cannot give him an exact estimate at present. If he is anxious about the fact that a large number of people were arrested in Brussels and Charleroi, I can assure him that I have already made it clear in the record of the House that, given that one of the Belgian police chiefs said publicly that a proportion of those arrested were innocent of any crime at all—even under the Belgian criminal code—I am not willing to publish the names of any of those arrested. As we do not know which of them were innocent in the eyes of the Belgian police, it would be oppressive to those people if the information were used indiscriminately.
However, it is palpably the case that, whatever the exact proportions, there was serious violence and disorder during the tournament, although it was not caused exclusively by people purporting to be English fans. A number of German fans were arrested in Charleroi, although most of the disorder was by English fans.
As the House has increasingly realised during the past three years, a legislative loophole allows yobs and hooligans to go abroad to cause the mayhem we saw in


Brussels and Charleroi and to escape unpunished either in the territory in which they misbehaved or in our courts. If the England team and our club sides are to continue to be able to play abroad, we have to accept as we find them the criminal justice systems of the countries involved. We cannot impose as a condition of our engagement in tournaments abroad that the judicial systems of other countries are changed to suit us, or to suit people from our country who might get into trouble with the law.
We have already tried to close the loophole. Before Euro 2000, I went to considerable lengths to persuade the Dutch and Belgian Ministers of the Interior and of Justice that English offenders should not only be arrested if they caused trouble, but brought to justice through the courts of those countries and, where there was proper evidence, convicted. Formal memorandums of understanding between the United Kingdom and both the Netherlands and Belgium were signed. In the UK, we legislated through Orders in Council to enable our courts to impose banning orders on those subject to convictions in Belgium, the Netherlands and France. However, although there were 965 arrests in total, there were only five convictions: four in the Netherlands—mainly for ticket-touting offences—and only one in Belgium.
I intend no respect to the Kingdom of Belgium—[HON. MEMBERS: "No respect?"] I intend no disrespect to the Kingdom of Belgium. We have had good times discussing Belgian issues—[Laughter.]. We all remember the great legacy to the House and the country from the work of the now famous Mr. Victor d'Hondt, without whose mathematical algorithm we should not have been able to implement that wonderful and impressive counting system for the European elections that received such approbation from the voters.
In a similar vein, I intend no disrespect to Belgium when I point out that, if comparable disorder had occurred in England, we would expect a significant number of convictions and banning orders to result. That is the truth. However, it is also true that, if we participate in events in other countries, we must accept their legislative and criminal justice systems.
We need legislation to prevent individuals who have a demonstrable propensity for violence and disorder from inflicting further suffering on host populations and on their fellow supporters. We must deny them the cloak of football and the associated opportunities to abuse whoever they choose, either because of their distorted notions of patriotism or through simple thuggery.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I understand my right hon. Friend's suggestion that people with demonstrable problems should be dealt with. Does he accept, however, that some of us are extremely concerned about the provisions in the Bill that give enormous powers to constables to detain people? Will he make it clear during his speech exactly which criteria will be used? There are thugs who own suits; they are capable of carrying in their elegant luggage the clothes that will transform them when they get to the other side of the channel.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the detail of the Bill in a moment. I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that the proposed powers for the police are not large and indiscriminate. They are specific powers of

direction so that people with records of disorder or violence can be brought before the courts, and the courts—not the police—will decide whether it is appropriate to impose a banning order.
Our criminal justice system has many merits but, as the House has long recognised, it does not deal effectively with so-called lower level violence or disorder, which can seriously be disruptive of other people's lives. That is why in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 we introduced anti-social behaviour orders and why we need to introduce similar measures in respect of football hooliganism.
The original proposal was to seek banning orders on known but unconvicted hooligans. That was aired during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 and during the build-up to Euro 2000. However, for the reasons that I have sought to explain, it is widely accepted that we need to go further. The measures before the House have been prepared with that in mind. They are intended seriously to tackle the menace that this country now faces from English hooligans who go abroad and cause the kind of mayhem that we saw in Charleroi and Brussels. The measures enjoy the overwhelming backing of NCIS, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales as well as that of the Football Association and the vast majority of bodies that are confronted by hooliganism and its impact on our national game.
To pick up on another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), all those who deal with criminal behaviour know that there is no legislation in the world that can eliminate criminal behaviour altogether. What we can and must seek to do, however, is to reduce its occurrence.
I will now take the House through the four key measures proposed in the Bill.

Sir Robert Smith: The Home Secretary mentioned the anti-social behaviour orders, but will he reflect on the fact that, during the passage of the Bill that introduced them, Ministers assured us that they would be a last resort and that guidelines would make sure that they would be used in a limited way? Once the Bill became an Act and the orders became a power, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have both lambasted councils for not using more of them.

Mr. Straw: The general view is that the orders have been used too much as a last resort. There was confusion for which I was partly responsible—I have made that quite clear—about the circumstances in which the orders should be used. What we and, more important, the local authorities and the police have said and what is obvious from the Act is that anti-social behaviour orders should be used where the circumstances are appropriate. In some cases, they need to be used very quickly, but in other cases they may be used where other methods, which it is thought would operate, have not succeeded.
The hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency so he will know that, in Scotland, Dundee city council and the police on Tayside have been in the vanguard of successfully using the Scottish equivalents of anti-social behaviour orders.

Mr. Alun Michael Penarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, far from saying that


ASBOs would be used as a measure of last resort, we said that the measure of success would be the understanding by those who indulge in anti-social behaviour that police and local authorities intended to nip their activities in the bud? We said that prevention and a reduction in the amount of anti-social activity would be the true sign of success.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is correct.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the organisations that want such legislation. Will he also mention the organisations that have made representations to him expressing their concerns?

Mr. Straw: I cannot give a full list, but I will ask the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to provide one when he winds up the debate. It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) that Liberty has expressed its reservations.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: And the Law Society.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to provide a litany of organisations.

Mr. Straw: Some of the organisations are listed in the Library briefing that I commend to my hon. Friend.
Let me deal with the four key measures that are proposed in the Bill. It is laid out in a way that fits in with existing football hooliganism legislation. It has seven relatively short clauses, and the operative provisions are to be found principally in schedule 1 on page 4.
The proposed new section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989 is relatively non-controversial and effectively combines domestic and international orders into one entity. That is vital because, at present, only those people subject to international bans can be prevented from travelling overseas. That is just 106 of the current crop of about 560 people who are subject to football banning orders.
The proposed new section 14E makes passport withdrawal mandatory in respect of the new combined banning order unless there are exceptional circumstances. To provide reassurance to hon. Members, I shall explain what will happen when a passport withdrawal condition is imposed, which we have suggested should be mandatory except when there are exceptional circumstances. It is not the case—nor should it be—that, when a passport condition is inserted into a banning order, the person concerned has to surrender his or her passport so that he or she is not allowed to travel abroad during the period in which the banning order obtains. The arrangement will not work like that in any particular.
The passport condition is designed to restrict someone from travelling only during a controlled period—typically five days before and until the end of a relevant

international or club game in Europe. When it is a club game, the football banning authority, which is part of NCIS, will ensure that if the person concerned is not a supporter of that club, he will typically not have to hand in his passport and report to the police station during the controlled period. It is a very constrained arrangement, which is specific to the need to stop these people who have been identified by the courts as known hooligans travelling abroad for particular matches.
Because the matter has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I also point out that, if there is an emergency during the period in which someone has to hand in his passport and cannot travel abroad—for example, the person concerned may want to travel abroad to see a relative who is critically ill—he can apply to the banning authority to have the passport restriction lifted. If, for any reason, the banning authority refuses to do that, a series of appeals can be entered into very quickly.
The third and fourth provisions in the Bill have not previously come formally before the House, but one part has been discussed in some detail in the past. The proposed section 14B introduces the concept of banning orders by complaint where they would be subject to the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates court in the way that the anti-social behaviour order is at present. That is the proposal that we and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made last year and that we hoped to include in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999.
The provision is designed to catch hooligans who may not have football-related convictions but who have caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and in relation to whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that the imposition of such an order would help to prevent football violence or disorder. I say to hon. Members who are concerned about the use of the police power, which is the fourth limb of the arrangements, that the power relates directly to the power that we are suggesting should be provided to the courts to make a banning order on a complaint. The key point is that the court can make such a football banning order on a complaint only if it believes, first, that there is evidence that the individual concerned has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and it is then satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the imposition of such an order would help to prevent football violence or disorder.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Earlier, my right hon. Friend rather flippantly passed over the criticisms of the Bill that have been received from Liberty. Should he not take seriously the fact that Liberty—the former National Council for Civil Liberties—has deep misgivings about the Bill and the powers within it, and particularly deep misgivings about the powers of the police to take people's passports away, thus putting the police in the position of being both prosecutor and executor of the law? Does he not think that Liberty's objections alone are enough for him to stop in his tracks and look to some other means of campaigning against racist violence at football matches?

Mr. Straw: I was not in the least flippant in respect of Liberty, but Liberty has one view of the matter. Liberty typically takes this view; it did so over anti-social


behaviour orders which, Liberty suggested, would be completely outwith the European convention on human rights. There is no evidence whatever to support that case.
The House faces a choice. We have been through a series of proposals and measures to seek to control this kind of terrible disorder and violence which is perpetrated by so-called English fans. The simple fact of the matter is that, so far, the current arrangements have worked in part, but they palpably have not worked in full. We have a choice; if we do nothing, we can—I apologise to the Opposition for using this word—guarantee that such problems will continue in the future, whatever co-operation we seek with the police services abroad. We must act proportionately, justly and within the European convention. As I will explain, I believe that we are doing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) knows that we cannot have our policy determined by one particular organisation. That would be risible in the extreme.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary has accepted that it is likely that a substantial number of people deported from Belgium after the last football match violence were completely innocent. How does he reconcile that with the provision in new section 14C under which magistrates can rely, or may rely, on any decision of a public authority, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere? That must mean that a person who has been deported—possibly arbitrarily and wrongly—will thereafter have a taint that will be taken into account by the magistrates court in deciding on future banning orders.

Mr. Straw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the phrase is not that the court has to take account of this, but that it may. He knows that the courts are well able to weigh evidence; that is what they are there for. In this case, they are weighing up whether the person has caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere.
Proposed section 14C defines violence and provides examples of behaviour constituting disorder. The examples given are not new, and reflect current public disorder criteria as contained in the Public Order Act 1986. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, the Bill also sets out matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether or not to impose a banning order. These include: convictions for violence against persons or property, including threatening violence and doing anything to endanger the life of a person; convictions for disorder, including, importantly, stirring up hatred against persons on the basis of their colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins; any relevant convictions received outside England and Wales; any decision of a public authority; deportation or exclusion from a country outside the UK: removal or exclusion from football stadiums here or elsewhere; and conduct recorded on video or by any other means—for example, documentary evidence of involvement in football-related violence or disorder, such as film of the street brawling in Copenhagen.
In the real world, no police officer would make an application to the court for a banning order where the only evidence was that someone had been arrested during

arrests that were indiscriminate in any event and where the police chief concerned had said that many of those arrested were innocent. However, there may be occasions where the evidence before the court includes a string of other evidence and the fact that, on another occasion, the individual concerned had been arrested, detained and released without charge by the court.
In those circumstances, it is reasonable to include those criteria. If there are positive suggestions about the way in which we can better amend the Bill, I am happy to talk to hon. Members outside and inside the House, as my hon. Friends and I have done repeatedly over the past 10 days.
For the measures to impact in a short time, it is vital for the magistrates courts to take account of conduct or convictions inside or outside the UK, whether the relevant behaviour took place before or after the Bill becomes law. Orders will be made under civil law to ensure that all available evidence can be used, but breaching the order would be a criminal offence. In this regard, the order is similar in construction to the anti-social behaviour order.

Ms Claire Ward: What decisions of a public authority does my right hon. Friend envisage being taken into account by a magistrates court?

Mr. Straw: They could be decisions by the banning authority, or other similar decisions. Again, if my hon. Friend and the House are concerned, we can provide more information. If we can seek to amend the proposal, we shall do so.

Mr. James Clappison: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made was important. The Home Secretary said that other evidence of disorder will be required besides the fact that the person has been deported. How can a person who has been deported in those circumstances—when innocent of an offence—establish that, when all the events have taken place overseas?

Mr. Straw: First, we do not intend to make public the list of those arrested in Belgium in any event. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows enough about the law to know that it is for the police officer making an application to establish the case, not the respondent to the application. Although the process takes place within the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates court, the standard of proof that is imposed on civil jurisdiction cases such as this is relatively high—and quite properly so.
The court has to decide whether the evidence is admissible and accurate and then has to use that evidence to make a judgment on whether the first condition of new section 14B has been fulfilled: that the person concerned has
caused or contributed to any violence and disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
Secondly, the court must decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order should be made so as to prevent further violence and disorder.
Wherever they can, I believe that the police will want to apply for these orders well in advance of a particular fixture in order to prevent suspected hooligans from even setting out for the game. Inevitably, however, there will be people who will not have come to the notice of the


police until they reach the port of embarkation. During Euro 2000, there were a number of examples of people travelling to Belgium without tickets who had previous convictions for violent offences. The police had no powers to prevent such individuals from leaving the country and although they were able to pass such information on to authorities abroad, no action was taken by them.
New section 21B empowers a police officer to issue a notice requiring a person to appear before a magistrates court for a banning order to be considered and to prevent him or her from leaving the country in the meantime.
The power will be available only when matches outside England and Wales are due to be played, and for overseas games when the control period is operating. The officer needs to believe that the person has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or that the behaviour, not the appearance, of the person is such that immediate inquiries need to be made to determine whether or not that condition is met. The Bill is explicit. If authorised by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above, the person may be issued with a notice to appear before a magistrates court within 24 hours and not to leave England and Wales in the meantime; and they may be required, if necessary, to surrender their passport.
One of the proposals made by Lord Ackner during the meeting that I held on Monday was that the draft Bill should be amended to make it clear that the police officer had to spell out the reasons for the direction in writing at the time the direction was given. I have included that in the Bill. However, the Bill has also been revised to draw a distinction between being detained to make immediate inquiries and being issued with a notice effectively commencing a banning order by the complaint process.
In the aftermath of Charleroi, there were many demands, in some cases from surprising quarters, that we should replicate the powers that the German police had taken to turn back people at the borders without any further process. That power is not consistent with our tradition of policing or our respect for the rule of law, and it is not in the Bill. Instead, we are providing that where the police believe there are grounds for obtaining a banning order against an individual, they can, but only for a matter of hours, stop that person leaving the country so that they can take them to court. It is then for the court to determine whether a banning order should be made.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary suggested that powers are being given to police officers to act if they believe that people have previously caused or contributed to violence. Why does the Bill give police constables the power to detain somebody for up to 24 hours, simply on the basis that they believe that the behaviour would lead them to make inquiries? There is no requirement that the police officer even believes that the person has a record of causing or contributing to violence.

Mr. Straw: I am happy to discuss that point with the hon. Gentleman outside, as well as inside, the House, but that is not my reading of the Bill. The purpose of the measure is to enable the police, where they are faced with

people whom they believe to have previous convictions for, in the main, violence, to stop those individuals, check who they are, and find out whether there is evidence against them. If there is such evidence, they will be able to serve them with a notice and get them into court. The 24-hour period will start from the moment the direction is made.
There has been much speculation about people being stopped at the whim of a police constable or because of their appearance. That is unfounded. Behaviour at the point of exit from England and Wales will be relevant, but only if that behaviour is violent or disorderly or gives grounds for thinking that the person has been involved in violence or disorder in the past.
Those deported for minor administrative offences such as passport irregularities, or arrested by way of a preventive detention under Belgian public order powers, will not, as I have already spelled out, face bans unless there is other, better evidence that they have caused or contributed to violence or disorder. The genuine and decent football supporter has nothing to fear, irrespective of their appearance.
I recognise that the last two measures are new. During the meeting on Monday, Lord Alexander of Weedon suggested that because the powers were new, it would be advisable if there were a period when they were on the statute book but the House would then be able to consider whether to continue with them. He suggested also that, if possible, there should be a sunset provision in the Bill, so that after a certain period the powers could expire altogether unless they were replaced by additional legislation. I have accepted both those proposals in full, and they are be found in clauses 3 and 5.
Clause 3 requires the orders to be made by affirmative resolution. Clause 5 states that there will be an initial period, which cannot last for more than a year, and that the Secretary of State must ask both Houses for an affirmative resolution if the powers are to continue. Clause 5 also makes it clear that the whole Bill ceases to operate after five years unless other, primary legislation is passed. I hope that that provides important reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members, and I am grateful to Lord Alexander for that proposal.
As I made clear in my statement on 4 July, we have to act with speed to avoid disorder in Paris and during the European club campaign next season. But we must have careful scrutiny of what is proposed. That is why I agree with the Opposition that it would be wrong to try to deal with all the proceedings of the Bill in one day, although I believe that that sometimes happened with emergency legislation under the previous Government. The Committee, Report and Third Reading stages have therefore been delayed until next week. Obviously, we will listen carefully to what right hon. and hon. Members have to say this evening.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I was casting my mind back to the miners' strike in 1984 and 1985, when we tried to travel to other parts of the country but were stopped and sent back home. Would the powers in the Bill have the same effect and make such travel illegal?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, because there was much evidence to suggest that those powers, which were used by the police before the


Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 came into force, were arbitrary and without foundation in law. I say to my hon. Friend that many of us saw those powers being used, and many police officers deeply regret today that they were forced to use them improperly and arbitrarily. That soured relations between the police and the public for many years thereafter, to the regret of the police.
Why is this different? There are two reasons. First, almost as soon as the Bill comes into force—if it does so, as I would prefer, at the end of this month—the Human Rights Act 1998 will come into force. If that Act had been in force in the 1980s, in no way could the police have acted arbitrarily, as they did towards the miners. Secondly, the only power in the Bill that is exercisable by a police officer during a control period—an international tournament or an overseas club game—is the power to detain someone and direct them into court. That is completely different from the arbitrary power that was exercised during the miners' strike.
It is plain that if the Bill is to get through the House and the other place in time, it has to have the active support of the official Opposition. The Government have proceeded in good faith on the basis that that support existed. Just three weeks ago, on the Monday following the disgraceful scenes at Charleroi, I made a statement to the House. At that stage, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) called for police powers similar to those used by the German police and much wider than those in the Bill. She said that my hand would have been very much strengthened if I had
taken all measures that other countries have taken.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 38]
The next day, 20 June, in an Opposition day debate, the right hon. Lady promised that if I brought forward emergency provisions, the Opposition would support me.
On 22 June, the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech in Bradford in which he made what he described as an "important offer" to the Prime Minister. He criticised us for a "lack of political will" to tackle football hooliganism and pledged his party to support, in the words of his press notice,
any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooligans following the trouble witnessed at Euro 2000.
He went on to say:
I am today making this important offer to the Prime Minister. The Conservative Party will give full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation.—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Another guarantee."]

Mr. Straw: Full support—no ifs, no buts, no maybes—in the Commons and the Lords. The pledge was unequivocal, unconditional, unrestricted and without qualification. I took the Leader of the Opposition at his word. I apologise to my right hon. and hon. Friends for my naivete and innocence.
Within days of that promise being made, it had disintegrated into thin air. The tough talk had been exposed as weasel words. We saw that at the beginning of last week, with the right hon. Lady's less than unconditional response to my statement in the House. Last night that pusillanimous position was confirmed. Within just three weeks of that "important offer" of unconditional support in both Houses, we were told on the wires that the shadow Cabinet had decided not to support the Bill, but merely to abstain.
How different—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am coming to the conclusion of my speech.
How different the Leader of the Opposition's clarion call for new powers would have sounded in Bradford if he had set out what now appears to be the case—that on this issue, the Opposition are neither for what we are proposing, nor against what we are proposing. Instead, they intend to sit on their hands and abstain—saying one thing and doing another, all in the space of three short weeks.
The Bill in all its parts can become law before the recess only if the Opposition stick to the pledges that their Leader made three weeks ago. I hope, even at this stage, that they will measure up to their responsibilities.
Meanwhile, I tell the House that we all have an obligation to deal with the dreadful scourge of English football hooliganism abroad. The Bill contains provisions necessary to achieve that end. The Bill is measured, proportional and consistent with the European convention on human rights. I commend it to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Opposition have said throughout that we would support appropriate legislation to combat football hooliganism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any."] Obviously not any. No Opposition, nor any Government, would pledge themselves to support any old bad legislation, would they?

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Sit down while I finish. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to proceed by consensus, he is not giving much of an example.
We have said throughout that we would support appropriate legislation to combat football hooliganism, and that we were happy to have a Bill and to ensure that it reached the statute book before the House rises for the summer recess. I made it very clear to the right hon. Gentleman, both in statements in the House and in letters to him, that although we were prepared—I will go on to describe how we are still prepared—to support a Bill.
None the less, I made it very clear that we were not prepared to proceed without due scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman was seriously suggesting that we got the Bill through in one day. We made it clear that we expected due scrutiny, and that we held out the right to amend the Bill, to oppose parts of the Bill and to try to get it right. [Interruption.]
The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), from a sedentary position, talks about weasel words. If he seriously believes that it is not the duty of both the Opposition and the House to scrutinise legislation properly, to amend it, to oppose parts of it where that is appropriate, and to try to put a decent Bill into statute at the end of the process, he should not be here, because he does not understand the duties of the House.

Mr. Straw: I am so grateful to the right hon. Lady, and also for her earlier courtesy.
The right hon. Lady is now making the offer of full support conditional. Did not a Conservative party news release, under the headline
Hague offers Blair help on football hooligans
state:
Conservative Leader, William Hague has pledged that his Party will support any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooligans following the trouble witnessed at Euro 2000?
Did the right hon. Gentleman say that, or did he not? Is it not the truth that having given that undertaking, the Opposition are now rowing back from it?

Miss Widdecombe: The operative word in that is "hooligans". [Interruption.] That is the operative word. The fourth provision that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced goes way beyond convicted football hooligans and way beyond football-related offences. It is not that I do not see merit in that provision, as I shall explain, but we are helping the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister by giving them a decent Bill at the end, rather than the highly undesirable Bill as currently drafted in its fourth provision.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful again to the right hon. Lady. Of course the operative word is "hooligans". That is what we have been talking about. Her wriggling just now reminded me of the occasion when President Clinton said that it all depends what one means by the word "is".

Miss Widdecombe: All I can say is that if the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in scrutiny, in trying to improve the Bill, and in having the help of the Opposition to improve the Bill, he is not taking his own Bill seriously. I am taking the Bill seriously. I want to see it improved. If the right hon. Gentleman will now have the courtesy to listen, I will tell him how I want to see it improved.
No one wants to see in the coming months a repeat of the scenes that we witnessed in Brussels and in Charleroi during the Euro 2000 tournament, or the violence that flared in Marseilles two years ago, during the 1998 World cup. However, it is vital that the whole House ensures that the right Bill is enacted. History tells us that emergency legislation that is not properly considered can all too often be bad legislation.
The Bill in its current form is not wholly satisfactory. There are several possible loopholes, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged in my discussions with him. Several important loopholes have been highlighted and need closing.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No. I shall finish my point.
It may be that when the Bill has been scrutinised and revised in Committee and on Report, it will then be the right Bill. If so, the right hon. Gentleman can look forward to active support from the Opposition. Meanwhile, there are too many questions, especially on the fourth provision, on police powers of arrest, which the Home Secretary outlined in his speech.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Miss Widdecombe: I will finish the point, then I will give way.
It would be quite wrong to obstruct due consideration of the Bill, given that there is a necessity for appropriate legislation. We want to promote due consideration, so we shall not vote against the Bill in Lobby tonight. If it is substantially improved, we may be able to support it. [Interruption.] All I can say is that over on the other side of the House, Labour Members, with the exception of a few who take the Bill seriously, want anything rather than the right thing. We want the right thing, which is what we are trying to work towards.

Mr. Leigh: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on one point before I determine how I shall vote? A cardinal principle of any civilised society is that people should not be prevented from leaving their country on the say-so of a policeman. There should be a properly conducted hearing. The Home Secretary tells us that a hearing would take place within 24 hours, but that is not good enough. Will she reassure me that the Opposition will press for an immediate and properly constructed hearing to be held in a suitable place so that policemen cannot prevent a person from leaving the country if they have only the flimsiest of evidence?

Miss Widdecombe: I have already asked the Home Secretary about such a measure and he has already said that he will see whether it is possible to include a provision that magistrates will be able to hold hearings at ports so that it is not necessary to wait 24 hours. I do not know whether he will be able to include such a measure, but I have asked him to do so. I share my hon. Friend's view that such a provision is crucial and I shall press for it.

Mr. Straw: We are already making arrangements for court hearings to be held as quickly as possible—we can talk about that—but is the right hon. Lady seriously suggesting that instead of a hearing being held, for example, at Dover magistrates court, which would offer security, a spatchcock court with trestle tables should be erected in the departure hall of Dover port? What is she proposing? Of course a hearing would be held in the nearest available court. That is made clear in the Bill in any event.

Miss Widdecombe: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's approach to serious suggestions, he probably will end up with an absolutely daft Bill that sensible people will not support. Outside the Chamber, he took a more reasonable approach to what I have asked him for. I can at least assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that we shall indeed press for that provision and have already tabled amendments to that effect.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Presently.
We saw the first draft of the Bill less than a week ago. Yesterday afternoon, we saw a revised draft. Today—the very day of Second Reading—we have received the final version, with only hours in which to study it. I welcome the efforts that the Home Secretary has made in the limited time available to ensure that the Bill is in good order, but he cannot hold it up as a shining example of detailed and satisfactory pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Home Secretary surely must expect Members of the House and of the other place to give close consideration to a Bill produced to such a truncated timetable. If he cannot accept that without pouring scorn and ridicule on serious suggestions, he is himself destroying the spirit of consensus, of which he makes much. Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] It is catching, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is unfortunate because the Government have had two years to get things right. The House finds itself in this position soley because of their delay and vacillation.
More than two years ago, after the disgraceful scenes in Marseilles, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) tabled amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that, to an extent, are mirrored by some of the Bill's provisions. More than a year ago, during the passage of the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the Minister for Sport said categorically that further Government legislation was necessary. However, as was made plain in the debate initiated by the Opposition last month, the Government failed to act during that period, despite repeated promises to do so. That is the background against which the House is considering this rushed measure. The Home Secretary has deliberately and consistently refused to act over two years, so it is a bit of a cheek to criticise the Opposition for daring to want to amend the Bill.

Dr. Lynne Jones: If the right hon. Lady and her colleagues eventually support the Bill, will that tell the House that she is confident that these measures will deal with the problems of British football hooliganism abroad once and for all?

Miss Widdecombe: The short and simple answer is that I would not have total confidence, which is exactly why we ask for a sunset clause. We are attempting to proceed helpfully, but cautiously, precisely because we are trying to get the Bill right and trying to achieve a measure in which we can have confidence.

Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: If I may, I want to make progress on the main part of the Bill.
As the Home Secretary said, the Bill contains four main provisions. Conservative Members have no difficulties in principle with the first two, which combine the two types of banning order and require the imposition of a condition on the surrender of passports, which at present is discretionary. I share his view that that provision is too little used. In addition, we anticipate no practical difficulties with those two provisions. Having studied the Bill in more detail, we may wish to table amendments, but there is no fundamental disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on those proposals. Indeed, we have asked for them, as we have also asked for the third provision, which allows banning orders to be made against persons convicted of no criminal offence whatever. However, that has clear civil liberties implications. Therefore, there will have to be a more substantial debate.
In the context of Euro 2000, it will be important to consider whether the grounds for the power to make the new banning orders under proposed new section 14C have

been drawn in such a way as to allow orders to be made against genuine fans who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and subjected to administrative arrest and deportation in Belgium, despite not being involved in violence. Despite the tone that the Home Secretary took towards the end of his speech, I agree with him utterly, and must put it more bluntly, that the Belgians did not handle these matters as I would wish our European counterparts to handle similar occasions.
If we are to legislate to control the behaviour of our own nationals abroad, it is not unreasonable to ask that other countries put those same nationals through their due procedures when they commit crimes on foreign territory. I for one am disappointed that Belgium reacted by rounding up an awful lot of people, some of whom had committed no offence and just happened to be in the wrong place. I consider that an unsatisfactory way to proceed. In addition to whatever measures we take, we should press hard for other countries to ensure that people who commit offences on their territories during such matches pay penalties at law in those countries.
I have received representations from people who argue that they should not be branded in the same way as persistent hooligans simply because of how they were dealt with by the Belgian authorities as a result of happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Imminently; let me finish this passage. I should be surprised if we could not find a means to agree on the detail of such a provision.

Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the scenes that we saw on television—scenes that did not result in prosecution—of young men hurling chairs at police officers and members of the public, breaking windows and so on, constitute evidence that ought to warrant a banning order?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had his say; let me finish my reply. That is precisely the sort of behaviour that we think should be the subject of a banning order. That is why I just said that I would be surprised if we could not find a means of agreeing on the detail. What is not acceptable is that people to whom such evidence is not available should also be subject to an order.

Mr. Miller: The right hon. Lady heard the Home Secretary's statistics about those who appeared in court and were subsequently thrown out of Belgium. NCIS is likely to have evidence in respect of some of those people relating to similar violent activities. Surely the right hon. Lady does not want people with a history of violence to represent this country abroad.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman assumes that we object to a part of the Bill to which we have no objection. Let me remind him of what I have just said. I would be surprised if, on the basis of the provisions that we are discussing—provisions that are very similar to those requested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford a long time ago, when they could have been


acted on—we could not reach an agreement on the detail. I do not think I can put it more positively than that, although what I have said does not mean that I cannot express reservations about the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that a number of people were scooped up by the Belgian authorities, almost at random? The right hon. Lady should join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in saying that the Belgian authorities should have prosecuted those people, rather than our having to rely on video evidence.

Miss Widdecombe: I know that the atmosphere here can be quite soporific, but I have just spent a lot of time saying precisely that. Indeed, I put my view of what Belgium did in rather stronger terms than those used, rather diplomatically, by the hon. Gentleman.
The real problems, however, arise not from the first three provisions but from the fourth, which gives the police new and substantial powers to prevent British citizens from leaving the country—or, more precisely, from leaving England and Wales. We shall seek to establish exactly how the powers are intended to be exercised. Concerns have been voiced by members of all the main parties, not just here but in another place. Given the accelerated timetable proposed by the Government—with which the Opposition are co-operating—it is important for us to take those views into account, and to seek to achieve the maximum agreement on the Bill.
There is a general, if not universal, view in the House that such powers should not be exercised without the sanction of a court that has considered all the facts. I am therefore grateful to the Home Secretary for incorporating my request—which was also made by others—for the inclusion of the necessity for the police to give reasons to persons prevented from travelling, so that they may have the opportunity to prepare a defence. The absence of such a provision in the initial draft is just one example of the way in which, given proper scrutiny, we will make this a better Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Bill allows a 24-hour delay before a court hearing. Despite the rather scornful reaction that I just received—which does not reflect the reaction that I have had from him outside the Chamber—I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to accommodate my suggestion that magistrates should be present and able to conduct hearings at ports in order to reduce the delay, as there will undeniably be urgent cases.
Of course it is true that there are courts in Dover, but if we want this to be a seven-day provision, and if the period designated by the Home Secretary happens to fall over the weekend—which is quite likely—they will not be functioning. My point is not that, where there are courts, we need not ask people to go there immediately; it is that we can prevent 24 hours from becoming the norm rather than the maximum. That is what I seek to achieve.
The Home Secretary will acknowledge that some people will want to travel for urgent family reasons or business reasons—reasons that are nothing to do with football. Indeed, perfectly reasonable football fans who would miss the match if they had to wait 24 hours may want to travel.
Despite the reservations that I am expressing, I see merit in the general principle. The police have footage of offences, both in this country and on foreign soil, following which there has been no conviction. The merit of this provision is that it offers a mechanism whereby such people can be prevented from behaving similarly in Paris, Munich or wherever.
However, there are serious implications for civil liberties, for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and for the role of the police vis-a-vis that of the courts. That is why I am so keen to get it right. I cannot believe that Labour Members really disagree with that simple proposition.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The right hon. Lady seems to be saying that the Opposition intend to abstain because they want time to table amendments, but the only amendment that she has suggested is a provision to put courts in the ports. We already have a 24-hour turnaround time. It is absurd if that is the only suggestion that she can make.

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Table Office, he will find that, far from that being our only suggestion, we have already tabled a substantial number of amendments to various parts of the Bill. He does not want me to give details of every amendment on Second Reading; I am picking out those that I consider to be most important. As I have said, I am trying to help to produce the right Bill.

Ms Ward: rose—

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) asked me to give way before, so I shall give way to her now.

Ms Ward: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want a good Bill, but what will happen if we do not get this Bill through and if, at the beginning of September, English fans go to France and a minority of football hooligans cause havoc in Paris? Will the right hon. Lady tell me how she and other Members who oppose the Bill will feel if that happens?

Miss Widdecombe: I regret that I gave that intervention precedence, because it was not worth having. I have already made it clear that the Opposition are keen to help to get the Bill right to try to prevent a repetition of such behaviour. Otherwise, why would we co-operate with one of the most truncated timetables that we have ever been offered? We are co-operating precisely because of the point that the hon. Lady makes. There seems to be an attitude among Labour Members that, unless we agree to any old thing regardless of its merits, we are not helping. We are trying to get it right.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the all-party football group met Scotland Yard's criminal intelligence unit a few days before the big riot occurred, and they told us exactly what was going to happen? They had the information on a database, which is why a clause in the Bill provides that that information can be disclosed. Every club in the country has a list of about 150 supporters who


have had their season tickets cancelled, have been evicted for obscene chanting, disruption or racist chanting or have a known history but do not have a conviction. That evidence could and should be used. Is the right hon. Lady arguing that, if those people do not have a conviction, that record should not count?

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. Just now I specifically said that the merit of the Bill is that it allows us to move against those who do not have convictions. I was then going to describe the demerits. Instead of hearing total opposition in everything that is said, he should listen to what is actually being said and he may even be convinced.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way once more and then make progress.

Mr. Murphy: I thank the right hon. Lady. I have listened closely to her arguments. She has said that the Opposition are no longer willing to support any legislation against football hooliganism. I ask her for a yes or no answer to this question. Are any of the amendments that she and her hon. Friends have tabled a matter of principle such that she will not ultimately support the Bill here or in the other place, so that we do not have the legislation through the House before the recess?

Miss Widdecombe: I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the House, but he presumably understands how Parliament works. I have not tabled any amendments for frivolous purposes. The purpose of the amendments, as a body—

Mr. Banks: Is that a yes or a no?

Miss Widdecombe: I am answering the question.
The purpose of the amendments is to reduce the undesirable effects of the Bill. I shall have to see what the Bill looks like when it has been through its stages, but tonight we will not obstruct it. We have accepted the timetable, and we are producing amendments. We are doing our best to help, and all we are getting is complete non-comprehension from hon. Members who apparently believe that their duty is slavishly to approve anything that is put before them without going through it in any detail.
I shall now make progress before taking any more interventions. The Bill has serious implications for civil liberties, for the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and for the role of the police vis-a-vis that of the courts. That is why we must get the Bill right. The definition of behaviour that might cause an officer to prevent travel is too widely drawn—or at any rate it appears to be. In new section 14C(3)(b) we are told that such behaviour is not limited to
conduct which constitutes a crime.
Bearing in mind the fact that almost all disorderly behaviour is conduct that constitutes a crime, that behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace is a crime, and the very wide net that constituting a crime would throw over such behaviour, I must press the right hon.

Gentleman to tell me what behaviour would not constitute a crime but would be deemed serious enough to prevent travel.
When I put that question to the right hon. Gentleman in his more reasonable frame of mind, he explained to me—and subsequently followed it up with a letter—that his problem with that argument was that what constitutes a crime in Britain may not constitute a crime in other jurisdictions, that he would have to obtain evidence not only of the behaviour but of the specific offence that such behaviour constituted in other jurisdictions and that that would be time consuming and would be difficult to obtain in a short space of time, would be administratively complex and could lead to a considerable number of challenges. That is perfectly fair, so let me ask him this. Why can he not limit the conduct to that which would constitute a crime under our law even if that conduct had taken place in some other jurisdiction? There would remain a requirement for that behaviour to constitute criminality under UK law.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady raised this question with me yesterday, and we are thinking hard about the point. I understand her concern and that of her right hon. Friends that the Bill should not inadvertently be too wide. She accepts that it is appropriate that, if behaviour abroad were adduced as evidence in this country for a banning order, we should not have to prove that the behaviour was an offence abroad, because that would cause immensely complicated problems.
The problem then is whether we keep the other limb of that provision which says that the behaviour need not constitute a crime in this country. Although I am happy to listen to the House's opinion and to discuss it with the right hon. Lady further outside the Chamber, that provision is there, as I explained in the third paragraph of my letter, to deal with the issue of intent. It will be the case, almost without exception, that the kind of behaviour that—under the Bill as drafted—would be adduced in court as evidence justifying a banning order would meet the actus reus of one or more offences under English law. However, in many cases, no evidence will exist to prove intent, for the reasons that I set out. That was the point with which the draftsmen were trying to deal. If there are other ways to deal with it, while still ensuring that the Bill covers behaviour likely to cause violence or disorder, we will be happy to discuss them.

Miss Widdecombe: That was exactly the spirit in which I had hoped that this debate would be conducted. The Home Secretary has just admitted that there is a problem with the Bill, that it might have undesirable consequences, that trying to tighten it up is not as straightforward as it might seem and that, therefore, he will have to reconsider it. He will understand why we want to reserve judgment to see what he comes up with. That is the spirit in which I hope that we can resolve many, if not all, of the difficulties outstanding on the Bill.
The next difficulty arises over what will be section 21A(2). We need to know whether the behaviour referred to in that provision has to constitute a crime, such as a breach of the peace, or whether it could be as simple as an off-the-cuff remark that an officer overheard and took


exception to. In such cases, a constable will have to take account of behaviour taking place at the port or in his presence. What exactly does that behaviour have to be?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for focusing on section 21A(2), because it would give an officer the right to arrest in order to conduct inquiries. She will be aware of the provisions of article 5(1) of the European convention on human rights. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary what justification exists for an arrest to be made under section 21A(2) under article 5(1)? I can find no justification for such an act.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall add that question to the one that I have just posed, and I shall give the Home Secretary time to deal with them. We would value it if the Bill could be redrafted so that behaviour that attracts action under section 21A(2) will have to be criminal or very carefully specified.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Lady is dealing with the crucial point of the Bill. Does she share my concern that the problem is that the constable would be required to form an opinion, on the basis of behaviour, that somebody has committed a crime or been engaged in violent or disruptive behaviour at some time in the past? I am not sure of any behaviour, other than an assertion by someone that he had been involved in disruptive behaviour, that would fit the bill. That concerns me greatly.

Miss Widdecombe: My reading of new section 21A(2), as opposed to section 14C, with which I have dealt, is that it is the behaviour of someone who is present there and then. I am asking not whether that behaviour is indicative of something that has happened in the past, but whether it would normally attract a charge—that is, whether it would be a crime.

Mr. Heath: I entirely accept the right hon. Lady's argument, but does not the Bill make that the grounds on which the police officer has to decide whether further inquiries should be made? It is a strangely retrospective requirement.

Miss Widdecombe: That is an interpretation of what the section does. It is giving rise to huge concern on the Opposition Benches, on the Labour Benches—the Home Secretary will admit that—and in another place, and indeed, to concern on the part of responsible commentators. All that we are saying is that the present drafting has dangers. We want to get those dangers out of the Bill if we are to support it at a later stage.
Eddie Curtis, head of the hooligan spotting unit, said in an interview with the BBC that the police would use the new powers—in 14C and 21 A(2)—against those who may well not have come to their attention but who were attempting to travel abroad with known hooligans, or to prevent those already deported from overseas tournaments from returning to them to cause more trouble. That is his definition.
However, the Minister in another place, Lord Bassam, said that the powers could be used against anyone who happened to be acting randomly in an airport lounge.

That is what was driving my most recent question to the Home Secretary about whether an act of rowdiness that does not amount to criminality will be a sufficient condition to invoke that clause. That is a much broader application.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, it will.

Miss Widdecombe: If that is my right hon. and learned Friend's reading of the Bill, it is crucial that the provision is tightened up before it is enacted, otherwise we will have well-intentioned but chaotic legislation.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not possible to forecast the things that these people may do? When Leeds fans went to Turkey, they urinated in public in front of Turkish women and pretended to wipe their backsides on the Turkish flag. Those may or may not be criminal offences in this country. A common complaint against this gang is that they urinate anywhere. One cannot say that this or that should be a condition. The police, who are experienced in football behaviour, must be able to exercise their judgment about what these people do.

Miss Widdecombe: Both the offensive activities that the hon. Gentleman described would be an offence. That is the criterion for which I am asking: that what should define the conduct that we are discussing in these sections is whether it is an offence under our law. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary who is right, the policeman or the Minister, or are they both right? We must explore those issues further.
The power in new section 14B for the police to detain someone who has
at any time…caused or contributed to any violence or disorder
is somewhat vague. The terms "violence" and "disorder" are specifically defined in a wider context than football-related violence or disorder.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I have taken a lot of time. Many hon. Members want to contribute. I shall make progress and I shall not take interventions from hon. Members on either side of the House for a long time—in fact, until I finish.
To take just one example, would the power extend to someone who might now be a pillar of the community, hold a position of trust, and be of some standing but who, in his younger days decades ago, organised student protests or demonstrations at university? The House will need to look closely at the definition of behaviour in new section 14B(3).
Will police officers be able to stop someone at a port because of their dress or physical appearance?

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman says no, and I am grateful for that, but how widely is the term to be interpreted? I also want to explore in Committee the process by which magistrates will hear the case against someone who has been stopped at a port.
There are concerns that the police will effectively be able to detain someone on mere suspicion, without any evidence and without a court hearing, for up to 24 hours. We must also look at the new court powers that the Home Secretary proposes. For what length of time is it intended that people should be remanded by the court under new section 21C(3)? Should they be remanded in custody? Is that the intention?
Loopholes in the legislation have already been highlighted. For example, one of the Bill's silliest effects is that the new police powers will not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland, so the hooligans whom the power is intended to catch, rather than travelling from Manchester, Heathrow or Dover, will instead travel from Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Belfast. As things stand, the police there will be utterly powerless to stop them. I understand that the Home Secretary does not propose to institute border checks along Hadrian's wall, so he will be completely powerless to prevent it happening. When he wrote to me on that point, he effectively said that there was nothing he could do about it, but he described it as a remote possibility. It is not a remote possibility because hooligans are a well organised and highly sophisticated criminal element. Therefore, the proposed power may already be so full of holes that it will be rendered practically useless.
I was surprised to read in the draft explanatory notes published last week that the legislation does not extend to Northern Ireland because, the Home Secretary says, criminal law is a devolved matter. I am sure that many hon. Members will have been equally surprised as criminal law remains a reserved matter under the Government's Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the Home Office cannot even get the constitutional position of Northern Ireland right in its explanatory notes, how can we be sure that the Bill does not contain other far less obvious errors?
I welcome the Home Secretary's decision to accept the request of myself and of others that a so-called sunset clause be present in the Bill, but it is important that we should have the opportunity to revisit those matters, I hope with a more detailed and informed consideration than any of us will be able to give to the present Bill. However, given the exceptional nature of the legislation, we should consider reducing the time limits proposed in the Bill even further.
If the Home Secretary allows the Bill a maximum life of two years instead of five, it would still cover the whole of the 2002 World cup qualifying campaign, after which a considered assessment could be made of the need for and, probably particularly, the operational effectiveness of, its provisions. I have therefore tabled amendments to that effect.
The initial period before renewal is far too long. It is one year but, given the exceptional timetable under which the Bill is being rushed through, I propose that we at least consider and debate properly the merits of a first review after six months.
We have indicated that we will assist the Government in ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to combat football hooliganism and we are co-operating fully with the timetable, so that new legislation can be speedily enacted. That cannot mean that we are willing to give the Government a completely blank cheque, or to abandon the process of parliamentary scrutiny. That is especially

the case when the Bill proposes some new and wide-ranging powers that did not even see the light of day until last week.
I know that the whole House will want to ensure that the measures that we put in place are appropriate, proportionate and just. I do not think that the Bill measures up to that as it stands, but we hope that, with the co-operation of all sides, we will be able to bring about improvements in the coming days and before it goes to another place that will make a real difference to that assessment.
I fully acknowledge—I am delighted to acknowledge—that the Home Secretary has already taken on board and adjusted his Bill to reflect concerns that I and others have raised. I for one hope that that same spirit will prevail over the next few days and that the result will be a Bill that all sensible persons can vote for, because the menace of hooliganism is far too great to be treated lightly.

Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) supports the Bill in principle and is prepared to work with the Government to ensure that it meets the desired objectives and goes from here to the other place with all-party support.
I am not a supporter of instant legislation, which usually turns out to be bad legislation, giving rise to confusion and any number of injustices. I well remember being in the Chamber, when we were in opposition, during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which I said at the time was poorly drafted and misdirected. The right hon. Lady nods. That legislation was seen as very much a knee-jerk reaction to serious injuries inflicted on young people and others by savage dogs. There was a great deal of press clamour for Parliament to do something about that. Often when Parliament is pushed to do something, Ministers rush to pass legislation whose passage we can repent at great leisure.
I believe that the current proposals from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary do not fall into the category of instant whip legislation. As the right hon. Lady quite rightly said, the legislation's details need to be examined. However, it is not a matter of rushing legislation through. The problem has not just emerged, but changed and evolved. At times, it is difficult for legislators to keep up with all the different manifestations of football hooliganism. It is therefore essential that we discuss the issue in detail on the Floor of the House, to improve the legislation, which is all that we want to do.
The principles in the legislation have already been discussed at great length in the House. In many ways, today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is trying to complete the job started with the Football Spectators Act 1989. Hon. Members should remember that the then Government, supported by us when we were in opposition, thought that that legislation was an answer to the problem of football hooliganism then confronting us. Lamentably, that turned out not to be the case. Consequently, the law needs to be changed to respond to changed circumstances.
I hope that this Bill will complete the 1989 legislation. However, the House has to face up to the fact that, after we pass the Bill, eventually, we might discover that its


provisions are not adequate to deal with the problem. We are not infallible. We must be prepared yet again to return to the issue. If loopholes are revealed in the legislation which we, in all our wisdom, were unable to foresee, we will have to plug them and further tighten the provisions. This type of legislation is essentially responsive. It cannot be regarded as the final position beyond which the House will go no further.
As we know, hooliganism has been an odious feature of English football for more than two decades. It has earned us a reputation around the world as a nation of soccer thugs. Perhaps that is grotesquely unfair, but that is how we are regarded abroad. Around the world, one can detect in the attitude of football tournament organisers the fact that they dread the English turning up. They also seem mightily relieved when we depart with our national team, usually, and depressingly, quite early in the competition. They are happy to see us go.
I was fortunate enough to be present at the Euro 2000 final in Rotterdam, for the France v. Italy match, which was incredibly exciting. There was a carnival atmosphere at the match, where the two countries' spectators mixed. It was a great feeling to be there—I felt relaxed. Why did I feel relaxed? Because there were no English supporters there. I suspect that that is why many other people there felt relaxed.
Suppose that England had been in that final—which would have been a wondrous thing in itself—and had been in Italy's position, conceding that goal so late in play, in the 93rd minute, and then losing on the golden goal principle. What would have been the atmosphere in Rotterdam that night? I think we know what it would have been like—it would have been poisonous. That is the type of thing about which this country has to worry.

Mr. Bob Russell: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say why that is? Does he agree with me that the football authorities in this country, the football clubs and some of the players have created that very atmosphere which bedevils the English game as opposed to the others?

Mr. Banks: In my short contribution tonight I shall touch briefly on some of the reasons why I think we have a yob culture in this country. It is no good turning around and blaming the Government, the Football Association or the clubs. The people who behaved thuggishly in Charleroi and Brussels are responsible for their own actions. We can pass as many laws as we want, but if people are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions, what can we do? I am not pointing the finger of blame and saying that the Government or the Football Association should have done something, or that the previous Government should have passed tougher legislation. I blame the criminals for the criminal activity that they undertake when they are supposedly supporting this country abroad.
It is worth pointing out that the events in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000 and the subsequent threat to kick England out of the competition not only damaged our reputation yet again, but badly damaged our bid for the 2006 world cup. Although this is a Second Reading debate, I do not intend to go into great detail tonight about

that campaign. The true story will emerge over the next weeks and months. I understand that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport will be having a hearing on the matter of the bid, and that would seem to be the appropriate time to set the record straight. In the meantime, please spare me the gratuitous hindsight about the bid from sections of the press and some hon. Members. If England's bid was doomed from the outset, it would have been more valuable for them to share that nugget of information with the previous Conservative Government, who launched the bid in 1997, and with the Labour party, which subsequently referred to it in its election manifesto.
Those who believe that our failure stemmed from the so-called gentlemen's agreement should read the letter from Sir Bert Millichip, the then chairman of the Football Association, who was supposedly responsible for making the gentlemen's agreement, in which he denies emphatically that there ever was such an agreement. Copies of the letter will be made available to any hon. Member and to any member of the press who is more interested in the facts than in making cheap political points.
Of course we needed more than one European vote to make our bid successful, and we had high hopes of achieving just that until the dismal events of Brussels and Charleroi and the warning from UEFA that England would be kicked out of the competition. Charleroi might not have done us a great deal of damage in the rest of the world, but in Europe it effectively destroyed us and our overall chances of success.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Why did the hon. Gentleman support an early-day motion in 1996 saying that South Africa was the best location for the 2006 World cup? Did he believe that then, and does he still believe it now?

Mr. Banks: That was before England had launched an official bid. When circumstances change, I change my mind. What does the hon. Gentleman do? A different set of circumstances applied then, and I am quite open about that. In the end, if England was not going to succeed, I should have liked South Africa to have hosted the world cup and, but for the actions of Charlie Dempsey, a Scot who emigrated to New Zealand, South Africa would have been the place for the 2006 World cup. But that is now history and we have to revise our views.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Banks: I give way to a Scot.

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remind him that the Scottish delegate was the only European delegate who supported England's bid.

Mr. Banks: I pay tribute to Mr. David Will, the Scottish delegate from UEFA on FIFA. Of course he then supported the Germans, but that is the way it goes.
Just to drive home my point about hooliganism, let me say that the events at Brussels and Charleroi caused so much damage that we seriously considered withdrawing England's bid. As will emerge in due course, there was a great deal of discussion. We decided to proceed on the


basis that our withdrawal would have been interpreted as a victory for hooliganism and we would have been seen to be surrendering to hooliganism, even though when we went for completion at Zurich, we knew what the likely outcome would be. Hooliganism played a crucial part in the failure, and anyone who says differently is being either stupid or malicious or, potentially, both.
Wherever we went in the world during the campaign, at press conferences we continually came up against the question, "What about your football hooligans?" It came up time and time again. We tried telling people that, if they came to our country, they could see that we had secure, modern, all-seater stadiums just like theirs, with closed circuit television, specialised stewarding, and excellent policing. We have largely driven the problem of hooliganism out of our domestic game, but unfortunately we are still exporting it abroad.
Other countries have worse problems with hooliganism, domestically and internationally, than we do. However, once a country gets a bad reputation, it is a devil of a job to shake it off, and we have something that no other country possesses—a media where the negative is king.
Bad news makes good copy. It seems that we are the only country that sends more reporters to cover crowd behaviour than events on the pitch. No other country ensures that, whatever the level of disruption created by English hooligans, the images of our shame are sent in glorious detail around the world.
I realise how sensitive journalists are about that, and I emphasise that I am not blaming them for the violence. Of course, it would appreciated if they, in turn, did not try to blame the Government or the Football Association for the violence.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend think that there is any connection between the ludicrously chauvinistic and nationalistic statements made by the popular press in the lead-up to any England game—which often have racist undertones—and the subsequent behaviour of the crowd?

Mr. Banks: Absolutely. There are many facets to the causes of football hooliganism, but if a newspaper editor such as Piers Morgan at The Mirror cannot understand the contribution to the problem that he makes through the use of xenophobic language, he is even more wilfully malignant than I thought.
Legislation can deal with the symptoms of hooliganism, but it cannot address the underlying causes, which I believe are deep seated. We in this country are too insular, and we live too much in the past. We glorify war far too much. We seem still to believe that God is an Englishman and that his only mistake lay in the creation of foreigners.
Decent and sensible people can handle such statements and attitudes, but they encourage the belief among a significant number of young men fuelled up by alcohol that world war two is a continuous process which is now pursued through football. As well as introducing legislation, the Government should conduct more research into the causes of the yob culture in this country. Many such research projects are in hand but, although we must deal with the symptoms, we have to do more. We therefore need to identify causes as well as symptoms, and I hope that the Government will tackle that issue.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend said that hooliganism had been driven out of our

national game. I agree that we have driven it out of the grounds, but I am less convinced that we have driven it out of the areas around the grounds. Should not the research that my hon. Friend proposes include the incidence of alcohol-related crime around football grounds?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend takes me into an area that I especially want to address. I want the Government to co-ordinate research into such matters and pull together the various studies so that we can have a greater understanding of the problem. We would then be able to implement measures to deal with its various facets.
We have largely dealt with the problem of racism in our football grounds, but I cannot pretend that no racists remain. We have created an atmosphere in which peer pressure makes it impossible for people to stand up and shout the sort of abusive things that they used to be able to shout. For years, such behaviour was indulged in, wilfully and with abandon, even at grounds such as Stamford Bridge, the home of the team I support. That cannot be done any more, because of peer pressure. I am not an idiot, believing that we have somehow dealt with racists. We have not.
We need to understand what creates the sort of atmosphere that there is in our town centres on Saturday nights—not football-related, since, as we have heard in earlier debates, some of our town centres are no-go areas on Friday and Saturday nights because of largely young men drinking large amounts of alcohol. That is the sort of thing we need to examine. It is naturally not dealt with in this legislation, because we are dealing with symptoms, but in a Second Reading debate these matters need to be raised.
I was one of the first in the House to call for more intelligence work on organised football violence. I remember telling the Home Secretary of the day, Douglas Hurd, that we must have more police intelligence. The National Criminal Intelligence Service was a development resulting from some interesting debates. At that time no one in the House was taking the matter seriously. Football hooliganism was something that was happening elsewhere; there was no need for national Government to be concerned. I did not share that view. I pay tribute to the work of NCIS, but it needs more resources, and it certainly needs to have more co-ordination with individual clubs to further identify and isolate potential troublemakers.
I do not want my friends in the House to think that I am turning into a Sir Bufton Tufton type of Member of Parliament. I am not about to call for the restoration of national service, although there are times when it has flitted across my mind. But some sort of national social service might bring back the sense of community. I do not know where it went, and when it went, but I know that it is not there at present. These are matters for us to think about if we want to be thoughtful legislators.
I am not turning into Sir Bufton Tufton, but I have first-hand experience of being surrounded by football hooligans. I was surrounded in Bratislava by a bunch of "Chelsea Headhunters", some of the most notorious football hooligans. I hope that I am not stretching the word "debate" if I say that there was a rather vigorous debate. Perhaps I should say that there was a vigorous exchange between us. It lasted a long time, and at the end


one of them said, "We wanted to burn you, but now we've got to know you you're not such a bad bloke". I replied, "Let me offer you a bit of advice. Before you decide to burn someone in the future, if you had a bit of dialogue with them you might realise that they are not bad either."
I know what some of these guys are like. I have met them and talked to them, and I know what is at the back of their minds; I know what drives them. I feel that I know exactly the sort of people they are. My God! They certainly frighten me.
I have seen the damage that football hooliganism has inflicted on our national game, in this country and around the world. I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I am an enthusiastic supporter of his proposed legislation. I hope that all my hon. Friends will join me in supporting it in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Norman Fowler: It is a great pleasure and privilege for me, as one of the last national service men, to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I shall also follow the hon. Gentleman in this respect: I shall be very brief. The House was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
Clearly, civil liberty issues arise in connection with this legislation. No one but a fool would deny that. I was concerned with those issues in the same way when, in 1998, I moved a new clause to the Crime and Disorder Bill, in many ways a precursor of this legislation. However, there is not only one question of civil liberties. I am also concerned with the civil liberties of the shopkeeper who has his shop smashed up by hooligans, the civil liberties of the innocent bystander who is injured by thugs and the civil liberties of the police and the emergency services who all too often become casualties in the battles between the thugs and the hooligans. To put it at its most modest, there is a balance to be achieved; there are other civil liberties to be taken into account.
One issue is beyond doubt—the present position is not sustainable. Hooligans and thugs are getting abroad and behaving intolerably. The latest example, before the European football championships, again saw violence, with English so-called fans involved and English hooligans exporting their own violence. That violence led not only to injury but, as the hon. Gentleman said, to enormous damage to our national reputation overseas in soccer and many other areas. We must take that into account.
No one can claim that this is the first example. The same thing happened in 1998 in Marseilles, which is why I introduced my new clause, so I am entirely persuaded that new action is not only justified but necessary in relation to football hooliganism.
Let me make it clear to the Home Secretary that I support the Bill in spite of the rather crude and idiotic party politics that came into play at the end of his speech, which contrasted with the tone of what he said before. However, although I support the Bill, I have two serious reservations about what the Government are doing.
First, it is absurd that the Second Reading debate on a Bill of this kind should start at 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening. It is also absurd that Back-Bench speeches

should start at 9 o'clock. If the Government wanted to maximise opposition, they could not have done it better. They have given the impression that the measure is being pushed through without thought.
The Bill is also unnecessary—the Government have had two years' notice of this. I introduced my new clause in June 1998; I withdrew it on the advice of the Home Secretary who said that the Government would consider it. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who was here a short while ago, said in the debate on that new clause that it would take only a week or two to examine the Bill and put it into order. The Home Secretary said in his winding-up speech that, given the stage that the Government were at in the parliamentary timetable, two weeks' delay would mean that the Bill could not become law until late October of that year. So we have had not only two weeks' delay, but two years' delay.
A year later, in May 1999, the Minister for Sport also gave support to the proposal. She said that the power to make banning orders in respect of people without convictions was necessary and that we needed to find a way of dealing with those people.
It is a bit rich for the Home Secretary to come to the House and say that the Bill is a matter of such urgency that common sense and the normal rules of Parliament should be thrown out of the window in its consideration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was entirely right to make the points that she did. Speaking for myself, I will not abandon the Home Secretary's ship, but it would be more reassuring if there were any sign that someone was actually steering the vessel.
My second reservation, Madam Speaker—I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker—is this.

Ms Ward: The right hon. Gentleman is at it as well.

Sir Norman Fowler: I know; it is catching. I caught it from the Home Secretary, and I do not know who he caught it from.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham about violence in town centres. Football hooliganism is not an isolated offence. Many of the people who are hooligans overseas are also hooligans at home. It is unlikely that football matches are the only setting for their violence. Indeed, we know that that is not remotely the case. Some of those who have been arrested at football matches are precisely the sort of people who cause havoc in our town centres on Friday and Saturday nights.
What concerns me about the Government's attitude is that too often they seem to believe that it is necessary only to pass a law and crime will automatically be tackled. However, that law must be enforced, otherwise it is useless. We all know that some laws in this country are not enforced—for example, those relating to crimes such as breaking into vehicles or to traffic offences. We continue to add to our laws with no thought as to how they will be properly enforced.
That is not a new aspect of British criminological history. Before 1829, the powers of the courts to impose the death sentence were constantly increased. More offences in the UK were subject to capital punishment than in any country in the civilised world. It did little good, because so few offenders were detected and brought


to trial. Finally, the penny dropped—an organised police force was needed, and so the Metropolitan police service was formed.
The problem of hooliganism gives rise to a more general point: we need stronger police forces and more police officers on the ground. Detection remains the strongest deterrent. If people think that they can get away with it, they will commit crimes. Too many people really do think they can get away with it. That is a lesson that we must learn.
To enforce the law—let alone the zero tolerance regime to which the Home Secretary referred—we need more police. For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Government of what has been happening during recent years. Under the Labour Government, police numbers have gone down. The Home Secretary refers to the record of the previous Conservative Government, but under that Government, from 1979, there was an increase—15,398 new officers.

Mr. Bob Russell: Crime doubled.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says that crime doubled, but he does not dispute the police numbers. I thought that it was now Liberal policy to increase police numbers. I noticed that it crept into Prime Minister's questions the other day.

Mr. Russell: Exactly.

Sir Norman Fowler: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is the point I am making. I am afraid that I do not know the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] An hon. Member suggests that I am probably not missing much.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is another Essex boy.

Sir Norman Fowler: I will leave the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) sitting on the Liberal Benches for as long as he can retain his seat—I suspect that it will not be long.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: There is a correlation between police numbers and the detection of crime. However, there is a more serious point that should generate consensus in the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that there is a cultural problem in our society, which, in part, drives football hooliganism? We do not really understand that problem. We need to carry out research into what drives our young men to be generally much more violent and anti-social—especially when they drink—than young people in other countries.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want to spend too long on this point. There is no doubt that more research would be extremely useful. However, that will take time. One action that we can take now is to improve and increase the strength of our police forces. While we are doing that, other methods can be considered.
The Home Secretary used to talk about zero tolerance. The zero tolerance policies pursued in New York are good and extremely effective. They were introduced over the past six or seven years, but they require more police. Such

policies cannot be adopted while police numbers are being reduced, as they have been in this country during the past three years.
I mentioned the increase of more than 15,000 police officers under the Conservative Government because, during our previous debates on this subject, the Government constantly use the period between 1994 and 1997 when talking about police numbers. However, for all other comparisons they refer to the full lifetime of that Government. The police are crucial. If we are to make progress, we will, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, need a multi-faceted approach. The police are certainly a part of that.
For the time being, we shall have to operate with police forces of their current size. We can at least acknowledge that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales welcome the Bill as a sensible way of combating football hooliganism. I agree with them and I agree with the measures in the Bill. I agree about the urgency of the matter because I recognise that the 2 September deadline of the Paris match is important. Frankly, we would look foolish and we would be failing in our duty if we did not act against that background and in time for that event.
I am persuaded by the evidence that many of those who were arrested in Belgium had previous convictions for violence. The same was also true in Marseilles, and we have now had two years to put things right. We are at last taking action.
I support the banning orders in the proposed new sections 14B and 14C, given that the decision rests not with the police but with the courts, which will have obvious discretion. I also support the important safeguards introduced by my noble Friend Lord Alexander for one-year and five-year limits—the so-called sunset clauses. They are extremely important because they will give the House the opportunity to reconsider the issue again and to review progress.
I said that I would be brief, and I have been. I make no secret of the fact that I think that the handling of the Bill has been lamentable. It is a disgrace that an important Bill should be considered at this time of night, and I do not believe that many people with experience of Parliament would say otherwise. I remain concerned that the Government have not put sufficient emphasis on the enforcement of law in this country and have allowed police numbers to fall. However, the case for legislation was made two years ago and the Government have at last accepted it. I support the Bill as it has been presented tonight.

Mr. Alun Michael: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that legislation is a part but not the whole of the answer. He was absolutely right to refer to peer pressure. Indeed, we far too often deal with people only as individuals rather than considering the peer group that has influenced their behaviour. He made a good case for the youth service—a case that I strongly support.
I wish to spend a few minutes on the Bill's underlying principles. It is far too easy to characterise a fast response as disproportionate or intemperate. The words "knee-jerk reaction" roll from the tongue without thought or analysis on the part of far too many commentators. That in itself is a form of knee-jerk reaction. 
A fast response may be intemperate. Indeed, we saw that far too often during the term of office of the man described by the shadow Home Secretary as having something of the night about him, or in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham mentioned. However, it is not necessarily disproportionate or intemperate to respond quickly and firmly.
I do not regard it as disproportionate to seize the assets of those who profit from drug dealing, from the evil trade in people or from violence and intimidation. There need to be safeguards and checks in place, but those tests should not be obstacles that are set so high as to protect the evil and the guilty.

Mr. Chope: Does the right hon. Gentleman support the seizure of money from suspected drug dealers who have no convictions?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying. The evidence needs to be considered and the response needs to be proportionate to the strength of the evidence. I shall come to these issues shortly.
As for the Bill, I do not regard it as disproportionate to have a due process of law, at the end of which people with serious convictions for violence are told to go home and watch a football match on television. One has only to visit a victim of violence in hospital or see the effect on them months—or sometimes even years—later for it to become clear what it really means to have one's civil rights trampled on. In that context, I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
When criminals move fast and change the way they attack the safety of the public, it is the duty of the Government to move quickly to protect the public. The Bill is designed to prevent violence; that is what it is about. Of course there is a need for balance to protect against the abuse or misuse of powers on the part of the police, to protect civil liberties and to be firm but temperate in the measures taken. All of us who are serious about these issues would want to see that balance. It is because these proposals are swift, firm, balanced and temperate that I support the Bill today.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, made great play of seeking a definition of "behaviour". However, the problem is that it is often the context and the culture in which particular kinds of behaviour are displayed that may make them provocative or insulting. To that extent, I agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. As Gibbon warned us in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", it is difficult to frame laws that successfully require people to behave in a particular way or to desist from behaviour of a particular sort. That is why it is not only the enforcement that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to that is important, but the culture in which legislation is applied. That is why we need to be inventive in the way we frame our laws.
What has changed? Events in Brussels and Charleroi show that things have changed, and that is why we are here on a Thursday night: to try to prevent things which

might otherwise have happened during the period when Parliament is in recess. I am struck by the stark facts of the new profile of violent offenders becoming involved in hooligan activity during Euro 2000—not just those who have been involved in football-related violence in the past, but those whose past violence was not necessarily related to football.
We are talking here about 133 people with convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for offensive weapons, and 122 for criminal damage. Given the fact of those criminal convictions, the general public—and decent football supporters—have a right to expect clear and clinical action by the police and the Government.
There are problems with the style of police action when faced with difficult and challenging situations. Policing has not always been perfect in this country, nor can we expect it ever to be so. However, I pay tribute to the capacity of our police to learn to find techniques for defusing and reducing trouble and to use intelligence to prevent trouble and to co-operate with other forces here and abroad to combat the thugs.
It is worrying to see the failure to prosecute abroad, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary because, during the British presidency of the European Union, he organised a conference—for some reason, it happened in Blackburn at a football club—to try to get unity across the European Union on tackling precisely these measures.
Certainly, policing in Holland seems to have been intelligent and sensitive, though firm, and that of the Belgian police seems to have been reactive and sometimes provocative. While we can work across Europe to improve the standards of policing and the reduction of violent activity, we cannot take over responsibility for policing in other countries; nor should we allow such mistakes to excuse the activities of thugs and criminals.
It would be quite wrong to characterise the attitude of the Government as punitive; that would be a wicked caricature. I know the Home Secretary likes his tough image of a man of action—it has spread to junior Ministers lately—but we have also seen him tackle major issues of human rights, with the incorporation of the European convention.
We would not have had the Macpherson report, and the much-needed and dramatic change in police attitudes that it has stimulated, without my right hon. Friend at the Home Office. Nipping things in the bud with young offenders is in their interests, as well as those of potential victims and the public at large. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" is not an empty slogan—it is a recipe for decent communities.
I have no problem with the way in which an organisation like Liberty defends civil rights; that is what it exists to do. However, I regret its use of intemperate language and the inaccuracy of some of its statements. Liberty said that it
opposes in principle measures such as the imposition of criminal sanctions on those unconvicted of any criminal offence in any country, let alone any football related offence.


Well, first, we are not talking about criminal convictions in those cases, and surely Liberty should agree that prevention is better than waiting until a conviction is secured, and following that with punishment.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the banning order, which carries many restrictions on liberty, amounts to a criminal penalty?

Mr. Michael: There are restrictions and, of course, a breach of an order carries criminal penalties. Liberty has failed to understand the inherent principle, which exists in anti-social behaviour orders and sex offender orders, which is to identify behaviour that is damaging to other people and should be prevented. A breach of an order, on the basis of the criminal standard of evidence, leads to criminal penalties, and it is right that it should do so.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend realise that one of Liberty's serious concerns is that, in effect, one can end up with a criminal prosecution based on a civil standard of evidence? I hope that he has understood that point.

Mr. Michael: Yes, I have, but, with the greatest respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend has. As with anti-social behaviour orders, which were the first attempt to establish a principle of evidence for behaviour that has to be stopped, it is the breach of the order that has to be tested against the criminal standard of proof that can lead to a criminal conviction. The order itself is not a criminal conviction. The application of that point in sex offender orders and in this legislation is right, and that is what Liberty has failed to understand. As a member of the Labour party's civil liberties group, I believe strongly that we should argue these points, but Liberty's intemperate condemnation of the Government's legislation goes too far.
Similarly, the Law Society says:
we are concerned that the standard of proof adopted by the magistrates' courts would be the civil law "balance of probabilities" standard rather than the higher criminal law standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". This is despite the fact that any breach of a banning order would be a criminal, not a civil, offence.
The Law Society is right in that it is the breach that has to be tested to the criminal standard that leads to the conviction. I agree with my hon. Friend that the principle is important. The line must be drawn in the right place, as I believe it has been. It should be said that the civil law standard of proof is not terribly low.
The problem is that a series of events over time can be immensely damaging to the public, whether because of disturbance to the local community in the case of ASBOs or violence abroad in this case. We should be able to move in, stop those events and say to people, "If you do not take notice of the court order, you will suffer the weight of the law and receive serious penalties." That will stop the activity, and not misuse the power of the law.
We should learn from experience. I hope that the Conservatives will end their opposition to ASBOs. The message should go out loud and clear from all parties in the House that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated because we want people to be safe and secure in a decent society, and that where there are gaps in the law, we will fill them as we are doing today.
We need straightforward, clear measures to prevent violence; simple checks and balances to keep abuse to a minimum; fast and firm intervention where it is needed,

and a light hand when it is not. That is the recipe in the Bill, and the police regime and the use of the measures need to be sensitive and subject to scrutiny. That is why I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being so willing to listen to Members in the past few days and for giving us an opportunity to comment before the Bill came to the House, a point which has been conceded by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is a sign of strength to listen and to respond to the concerns of others.
I hope that in the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald we heard the grudging announcement of a U-turn. I am glad to see the Opposition being persuaded, even in that belligerent style. The test will be whether they help the Government to tackle the scourge of violence, which has dragged in the mud the name of England and, sadly, the name of Britain—I see that there were some Welsh hooligans as well, but what they were doing there, I do not know. We should all unite in seeking to avoid such disgrace in the future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As we discovered in the general debate on the subject on 20 June, there is a large measure of agreement around the House about the fundamental problem. It is not just to do with football matches or away games this year; it is to do with the way in which we as a society deal with violence.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and I, and others, took part in that debate. The prevalent view, as we heard from the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the former Home Secretary, is that we must deal with the fundamental issue. That will be the subject of an ongoing debate.
There is too much violence—too much alcohol-related violence, too much drugs-related violence and too much organised violence. It is not all personal and spontaneous; it is often strongly co-ordinated. Violence is unacceptable, whether at home or abroad. It is bad, wherever it occurs. What is worse, in the context of tonight's debate, is that it has an impact on something that is fundamentally good: sport is good, but all the good that sport can do for the player or the spectator at the match can be undone by violence.
The role models are perceived to be playing in a game that is no longer acceptable. Families do not encourage their kids to go and watch games any more. All the natural enthusiasm of young people for sport can start to be dissipated.
The role models have become much better. The players have become less aggressive. The football regime deals much better on the pitch with bad behaviour. The crowds at matches are much better behaved. The football authorities and clubs are much more effective at dealing with trouble. Behaviour around grounds has improved in many ways.
We are left with the exported problems. As the hon. Member for West Ham and others agree, the problems are exported not only on the occasion of football matches, but when people go away for a stag weekend, even if there is no marriage to celebrate, and every summer around the Mediterranean.
Men behaving badly and harming sport also harm our national reputation. I pay tribute to the police who try to tackle the problem, to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which tries to deal with the matter in a sophisticated way, to the clubs and to the Football Association. My right hon. and hon. Friends, including my party leader and me, met again the FA the other day to discuss how politicians and football authorities can work together to deal with the issue.
We can learn from the experience of others. We have heard comments about the experiences of recent months. We must learn that rounding up people when they misbehave and sending them home, but not prosecuting them, is not helpful. I have lived in Belgium and I am not disrespectful of Belgium, but generalising does not help. If people misbehave, they must be dealt with. Across Europe, we must learn from the best practice.
I gather from the Football Association that the pattern of fans travelling to matches without tickets, in hope rather than with certainty, is much more typical of Britain, and specifically England, than of any other country in Europe.
Although only a certain number of match tickets are allocated to this country, a greater number of our supporters get into the grounds because the network for getting hold of extra tickets is sophisticated and works well, although prices are often high. That happens more often with supporters from this country than with those from any other. This issue cannot be managed merely by allocating a certain number of tickets because people have shown that they can still get into grounds.

Dr. Ladyman: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to take many interventions, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Ladyman: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. Does he agree that there was less trouble at Euro 96 in this country because tickets were distributed and sold rigorously at grounds? Touting and free availability were major factors in Belgium.

Mr. Hughes: That point is directly relevant to my remarks, and I agree completely. The sooner we begin to manage the prior allocation and proper sale of tickets—not at ridiculously high prices, but at prices that the ordinary person can afford—the better. That must be part of the solution.
We can legislate—late at night, in haste or just before the summer holiday—but we cannot prevent people from deciding to behave criminally and violently. They must make that decision. All we can do is provide a context within which we can limit, restrain or restrict. People must take responsibility for their actions and face the consequences, but they should know what is coming to them.
Tonight, we are moving from the general to the particular. We entirely understand the Home Secretary's position and I thank him publicly for the courteous way in which we—and, I believe, the Conservatives—have been able to debate what should be in the Bill. We have

not reached identical conclusions, but the Bill has benefited from our dialogue. I hope that the House and the country will benefit, too.
It is absolutely proper to introduce a Bill to tighten up the law as necessary to prevent people with a criminal past from travelling to behave criminally abroad. Clearly, we are not doing that well enough and we need to do better. In our view, however, it is not appropriate to propose a Bill that will reintroduce detention as a summary power and take us back to the sus law, which so many of us campaigned to get rid of.
My colleagues and I have engaged in considerable debate in both Houses and with people outside. Our view is that, although certain of its provisions are appropriate, the Bill goes too far and is not justified in certain respects. An invasion of another country by football hooligans is unacceptable, but a raid on and capture of the civil liberties of people who may have done nothing wrong is also unacceptable. To use a phrase that did not originate from these Benches, we must not take away the rights of the many to deal with the offences of the few. We must look after the rights of the majority, even if we do not catch everyone who has ever done something wrong.
I understand the need to act now, because matches will take place this summer before Parliament resumes. I might add that we have always known that, because there are matches every summer, at home and abroad, and one football season starts no sooner than the previous one ends. The football authorities might do well to discourage teams from playing extra friendlies if they think that such matches will lead to trouble. Sometimes, the football authorities have to make the decision and perhaps English teams should not play some of this summer's matches if trouble is expected. The football authorities should not have to make such a decision, but, if they detect a risk, they may have to act.
Should we rush the Bill through Parliament in two weeks? In general terms, I take the view expressed also from the Conservative Benches: we could have legislated previously. Nothing that happened in Euro 2000 was all that surprising; it could have been predicted. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made his attempt to deal with the issue, and our view is that the Home Office cannot say that it did not have lots of slots in the legislative programme to bid for. Those of us who deal with Home Office matters have hardly spent a day out of the Chamber since last November. Some of us believe that it would be far better not to introduce a Bill to restrict rights to jury trial—which certainly was not in the Labour manifesto—if the Government insist on introducing a Bill like this.
As for the timetable, as the Home Secretary knows—and as was made clear in business questions—we think that the rest of the Bill should not all be dealt with on Monday. The Committee stage could reasonably be dealt with then, but we think that Report and Third Reading should be dealt with on Wednesday. People outside have an interest, and want to make their views known. We cannot do our job properly—and we need not do it in one day—if we do not give those outside a chance to talk to us about views that have been expressed and amendments that have been tabled.
I consider a Thursday-Monday-Wednesday timetable for the Commons—less than a week—and a similar timetable for the Lords to be entirely reasonable.


That would give the Government a Bill by the summer holiday, and would give all Members the chance to contribute, with time to consider what they were doing. As has been said by Members on both sides, we have already made enough mistakes in regard to legislation on terrorism, civil liberties and dogs. We must try to secure as much agreement as possible, and get the Bill as right as possible.

Mr. David Davis: When I intervened in the Home Secretary's statement last week, I understood him to say that he would organise the timing so that outside interests would have a chance to intervene between stages of the Bill. He may correct me later if I am wrong.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has spoken to his opposite number. I understand that no final decision has been made about what will happen next week. We will continue to make strenuous representations for the Committee stage to take place on Monday, without a guillotine—we want to try to agree a timetable—and for the business allowing us to complete the Bill to take place on Wednesday. Those in the other place—not just members of my party—do not accept that there should be a timetable that does not allow for an appropriate hiatus between the various stages.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that, if no amendments are tabled in Committee, there will be no Report stage.

Mr. Hughes: I realise that.
It is bizarre that we should be presented with a Bill that deals with disorder only in the context of football. On occasion, the police may suspect that people with previous convictions are going abroad to take part in a political rally, for example, and may feel that that would be undesirable because they might cause trouble. We cannot legislate for football one year, for ice hockey the next, for cricket the next, and for rugby league the next. Surely it would be far better to produce overarching legislation providing that disorder abroad of a certain type is unacceptable. I hope that, when the end of the life of this Bill comes—if it becomes law—we shall consider a Bill that is more widely drafted and does not refer just to football.
The Liberal Democrats have four proposals. As the Home Secretary knows, we fully support the joint domestic/international ban, and the consequential surrender of passports. I asked for a provision allowing people to apply to get their passports back if they needed them during the period concerned—for instance, in order to attend funerals or keep business engagements. I understand that that will be allowed.
We also argued for an order to renew parts of the legislation, with which I shall deal shortly. The Home Secretary has accommodated that, promising an annual renewal order. We also argued—as, I gather, did Conservative Front Benchers—for a limitation on the life of a Bill passed in haste. Although we may differ on the length of life, the proposition that the Bill should have a limited lifetime has been accepted, and we are grateful for that.
One general measure appears everywhere. I think that draftspeople have it on their word processors. I refer to the so-called Henry VIII clause, clause 3, which states:
The Secretary of State may by order make…any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision…any transitory, transitional or saving provision,
which he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of this Act.
I understand why those provisions have been included, but the clause gives Home Secretaries and other Ministers unfettered power, which we believe should be limited.

Mr. Straw: This is more an Edward II power than a Henry VIII power. It is pretty puny in historical terms. It has supplementary purposes, one of which—I did not refer to it in my speech, but it will be of help to the House—is to provide by order that legal aid should be available even for the civil process.

Mr. Hughes: I understand why Ministers want to reserve the power to add provisions as they think of them.

Mr. Straw: No, that is not the point.

Mr. Hughes: I understand where these clauses come from. We must be careful lest we fail to notice a provision that allows the Secretary of State to do anything in relation to the Bill, even if it was not directly mentioned in the debate.
Another defect in the Bill that has been alluded to is the Scottish and Northern Irish dimension. I have talked to my hon. and learned Friend, the acting First Minister in Scotland, about this matter. The truth is that the Bill is intended to deal with an English mischief, but it produces a bizarre outcome. In time, when we have more considered legislation, it would be sensible for it to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, because the problem is to do with people going out of the United Kingdom. Whatever some hon. Members may think, we do not yet have separate passports for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland: we have one passport and one common national boundary.

Mr. Simon Burns: It would be infinitely preferable if we could legally block up the loopholes concerning the rest of the United Kingdom, but how would the hon. Gentleman tackle the other loophole, which is that one can travel to Dublin without a passport?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a common travel area between us and Ireland. That is not addressed in the Bill. Ireland is the only country with which we have a common travel area. The Bill applies only to England and Wales, not to the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
I want to deal with the two substantive matters. I repeat my plea that we should take them first when we debate the Bill next week. The first is the proposal to extend the current law to allow a banning order to be made on the basis not just of a conviction, but of a complaint. We think that that goes too far. It is entirely understandable to make banning orders warranted by sufficient past behaviour. That is a warning that, as a result of something a person has done, he will have some restriction of his liberty—signing on at a police station and not going to a match, and in some cases having to surrender a passport.
Our view is that it would be sufficient for that provision to be available if a person has a previous conviction or has had a caution for any offence of violence, any offence that is football-related, or a relevant alcohol or drugs-related offence. We do not think that it is sufficient protection for the citizen to allow the civil burden of proof—the balance of probabilities test—to be enough to get a ban when someone has never had a conviction for anything.
That is illogical for the great British public because if there is evidence that someone has a past history of disorder, why has action not been taken and a prosecution brought? There are strong views on that on both sides of the House and in the other place. My colleagues and I do not accept that we should allow a sudden shift in English criminal law from the presumption that a case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a presumption that a person can be convicted and his liberties taken away on a degree of proof that we have never agreed as a general proposition.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way for the moment, because I am trying to make progress.
There is one exception to that that we would accept—it was mentioned earlier. If behaviour abroad clearly constitutes something that would be an offence here, because we have no jurisdiction to prosecute abroad, that would be sufficient.

Mr. Eric Forth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: We are nevertheless willing to consider the idea that behaviour abroad could trigger a ban, even though it raises other important issues.

Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening again. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about behaviour abroad, but does he accept that there should still be a criminal standard of proof?

Mr. Hughes: Yes.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am puzzled by one of the contentions, and I have wondered about the Liberal Democrat position on it. New section 14C states that the magistrates
may take into account…any decision of a court or tribunal outside the United Kingdom…any decision of a public authority, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—
that is, in other jurisdictions. Is the hon. Gentleman happy with the idea that legal systems with standards of proof or ability to convict that are outside our comprehension or understanding—we do not know whether they meet our standards of justice—may be taken into account? Is that a satisfactory basis for effecting this measure?

Mr. Hughes: I am not happy with that. I share the view that one cannot transport a conclusion of guilt from somewhere else where there may be a totally different process.
I have allowed interventions—I hope, helpfully—because we have an unlimited Second Reading. For the reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this is exactly the sort of Bill that cannot be rushed through—he argues often and well for a non-guillotined, adequate timetable for debating legislation—and it is precisely why we should have a Special, or proper, Standing Committee. We need the time. We need to consider the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. His is the argument against that part of the Bill being included when it leaves this House, if it does so before the recess. I encourage him to support us in that view.
Two questions have not been asked. First, what about the option of prosecuting here for offences abroad? No one has talked about it, but we do it for other things. Why are we not debating that and why has it not been considered? Secondly, what of the issue of spent convictions and their relevance? That has not been dealt with, but we certainly ought to include it.
The real mischief—I end with this because it is the most important matter—has been highlighted by other hon. Members. It is new section 21A in schedule 1, which is to be inserted in the Football Spectators Act 1989. Our fundamental objection is that the Bill does not say that police constables can arrest and detain someone for 24 hours only when they have reasonable suspicion, knowledge or a belief that they have committed an offence or been guilty of violent behaviour. It states that police constables, acting on their own authority, can arrest and detain someone for up to 24 hours—after which another decision has to be taken, with the approval of someone with higher authority—simply on the basis that the behaviour of the person is such that immediate inquiries should be made. The police constable has only to say that something in the behaviour of the person made him want to make inquiries about their past. That is an unsustainable proposition. What behaviour? Could it be any behaviour? Could it be noise, rowdiness, or even silence? Would not wanting to talk be regarded as self-incriminating?

Mr. Banks: They would not catch the hon. Gentleman then.

Mr. Hughes: That was a good intervention. I might be caught under the first category, but not that one.
Could it be bad language, or a T-shirt with something provocative printed on it—perhaps wearing the T-shirt of a particular club, or bearing a particular slogan? Could it be a combination of behaviour and appearance? Someone in a suit, for example, might seem less threatening when they say or do something than someone in a T-shirt and jeans who has a skinhead haircut. It is just not acceptable. I understand that it is not appearance that counts—I am grateful for that—but behaviour is not the way.
If, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, behaviour is such that it constitutes an offence, we are home under the offence. If a person is using racist language or threatening behaviour, or being aggressive or being violent, we are home; but the provision suggests that there is another category of action, another category of demeanour, that takes us beyond that. It raises the European convention point. It gives the police


officer the widest possible discretion. I cannot see how a police officer could have a qualification put on that discretion.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will in two seconds, because the hon. Gentleman has certainly been persistent.
There is a direction not just to ask a question, but to stop, to arrest and to keep the person there, so that the purpose of that person going out of that port—to go to Bruges to watch a match—is gone; 24 hours later, the match might well have happened and the ticket and travel money and everything else would have been wasted.
What can the person arrested do about it? What could he have done about it? How could he have avoided being in that position? He does not have a previous conviction; he has not done anything wrong. He is not doing anything that he thinks is wrong, yet he finds himself with his civil liberty summarily—to be fair to the Bill, it states "Summary measures: detention"—denied.

Mr. Browne: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with his criticism of new section 21A and of subsection (2) in particular. Although I support the Bill in principle, it can be improved. It might assist the debate if he indicated what his party would support as a test for detention. Would he, for example, support the test that has been in the Scottish criminal procedure legislation since 1980 and repeatedly legislated for—that a constable should have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a certain state of affairs exists before he can detain?
It is confusing and unhelpful to confuse arrest with detention. The hon. Gentleman used those terms interchangeably; they are not interchangeable. This is about detention, not arrest.

Mr. Hughes: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly proper intervention and makes the argument for having a proper, careful, considered, timely, cautious debate. Detention cannot happen without arrest. They are separate in law, but one will follow the other. It does not mean arrest for an offence, because there is not an offence so far, but it is arrest and then detention.
I understand the provision that the hon. Gentleman suggests as an alternative. Personally, I think that that is too similar to the old sus provision and I do not think that it would be appropriate, but, if he will bear with me, I have indicated on the Floor of the House, to the Home Secretary, and outside what we wished to see in the Bill and what the Bill that we would support through both the House and the other place would contain. I will come to that—I want to finish what I am saying.
We do not find new section 21A acceptable, on principle. We do not think it practical. We do not think that the police will like it because it will often give rise to actions for wrongful arrest and wrongful detention. We think that it is disproportionate to what the Government are seeking to deal with. We think that it is a general and very wide power to deal with a limited number of circumstances which no one has proved to me cannot be dealt with by other pieces of law.
What worries us is that it is another incursion into principles that, until the current Parliament, were taken for granted. No one argued that the burden of proof should

not be on the prosecution, yet that has been questioned in the current Parliament in other legislation, although we have now had that clarified. No one argued that people should not have a right to choose jury trial for a whole set of offences, yet that is no longer the Government's position. No one had argued before the current Parliament that criminal consequences should flow without a "beyond reasonable doubt" prosecution, yet that is now being regularly argued. Before this Parliament, no one argued that there should be a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence.
I find it surprising as well as offensive that a Labour Government are increasingly taking those views on board. I tell my Back-Bench Labour colleagues and friends that they should not go along with that simply to appear united, tough and strong. As the hon. Member for West Ham said—he supports the Bill; I am not seeking to misrepresent him—we have to concentrate on dealing effectively with the causes of crime, not on short-term solutions that turn out not to be solutions at all.
My colleagues and I will support a Bill containing the first two propositions. We have already tabled amendments to make the granting of a banning order dependent on a previous conviction. We would support such an amended provision in the Bill.
We will not support the Bill if it includes a summary detention provision. Nor will my colleagues in the other place support the Bill if it contains such a provision. On Third Reading, if the Bill still contains such a provision—and if the banning provision has not been amended—we will vote against the Bill.
I have had a constructive dialogue with the Home Secretary, and I recognise that the Bill has been improved. It would be unfair not to give it a Second Reading, because some of its provisions should be enacted. However, Liberal Democrat Members will not sign up to a Bill that is passed in haste with one extremely undesirable component and one very undesirable component. We have been consistent on that, and we shall be consistent on it in the next two weeks.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way again. However, I am very happy to pursue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman. We have next Monday, and we may have next Wednesday to do so.
There is an entirely justified case for further anti-hooligan legislation. However, a rushed and badly drafted Bill containing many unanswered questions is not the way to proceed. We cannot allow mere suspicion, based on no evidence, to be enough to stop someone leaving the country. There are rights—European Union rights, international rights and passport rights—to leave the country, just as there are rights to enter the country. The proposed new power is not only open to very grave misuse, but would be very difficult to implement in practice.
We should use banning orders more often, but only in appropriate circumstances, when evidence justifies their use. We also need to deal with the thugs who undermine our decent reputation. However, the Bill goes one significant, dangerous step too far. Some of us have to stand up against a Government who, although well intentioned, take those dangerous steps.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
We expect that the House of Lords will not pass the Bill in its current form. If the Government want a Bill on the statute book by August, they will have to listen to our concerns and amend the Bill accordingly. If they do, the legislation can be on the statute book by the end of the month.

Ms Claire Ward: In the short time in which the Bill has been available for discussion, it has certainly ensured that Members of this place and of another place have raised various important civil liberties issues, such as how to balance civil liberties with the need to prevent disorder at football matches. I am grateful for the opportunity that the Home Secretary has allowed Members of this place and of another place to consider and to discuss those issues. As we have heard, the Home Secretary has dealt with some of the concerns about the Bill. As we further consider the Bill, there will be more discussion of those concerns.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the Bill should have addressed more issues and was perhaps too specific in dealing only with football disorder offences. However, we have to take into account the fact that football-related offences are a very special case.
The legislation that has been introduced by successive Governments, notably since the tragedy at the Heysel stadium in 1985, and the attempts that have been made to deal with hooliganism and other problems at football matches, notably involving drinking and fans going onto the pitch during the match, show that football is a special case.
There have been attempts to deal with the outrageous yobbishness of some young men. The Home Secretary's statistics show that 30 per cent. of men have convictions by the age of 30. As a woman in that age bracket, I find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that so many men of my age have convictions. The problems in town centres—even in my constituency of Watford—at night and during the weekends—result from the same thuggish behaviour.
Some of the legislation that has been introduced over the years has helped to address those problems, but it has not dealt with them all. To some extent, that is why we are here today.
For the Government and for the public, football is a special case, not just in respect of legislation, but as a national cultural and sporting activity, so it is treated differently from other sports. For example, alcohol is not permitted at football matches, yet it is allowed at rugby matches. Fans are segregated at football matches, but not at rugby matches. Magistrates have rights to impose restrictions on licensed premises around football grounds. There is a criminal offence of ticket touting at football matches and other restrictions and exclusion orders apply. All that shows that football is treated differently from other sports. So I disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey who said that in future we may be discussing legislation that deals with ice hockey, rugby or any other sport. It is not the same.
Despite all those measures, we have had problems. We are all aware of recent events in Charleroi, Brussels and in Copenhagen and those of previous years. In addition,

42 per cent. of the men who were arrested, even under the administrative arrest system operated by the Belgians, already had previous convictions. The difficulty is that the existing legislation in respect of domestic and international banning orders would not have prevented people who were likely to commit offences from travelling abroad.

Mr. Roger Gale: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall elaborate on that point later. Given that thousands of people go through the port of Dover every day, every year, and that any one of them could be detained under the proposed legislation, how does the hon. Lady think that a constable on duty will differentiate between a person who may be going to a football match and a person who is not?

Ms Ward: The legislation has started to deal with that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also said something about judging people on their behaviour not their appearance. However, I shall return to that later in my speech.
We need action that will prevent thugs from travelling abroad to commit violence. However, we must be absolutely clear that no legislation that goes through this House or another place could prevent it from happening.
It is a fact of life that determined thugs who want to travel outside the country before five days are up, wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase and with a ticket in hand, are unlikely to be stopped at ports and airports if they behave themselves. The Bill will not prevent all instances of hooliganism, but it is important to introduce legislation as quickly as possible, to stop as many as possible of those thugs from travelling and causing problems.
Precedent exists for many of the measures in the Bill.

Mr. John Burnett: The problem is not one of preventing thugs from travelling abroad, but entirely innocent people. What does the hon. Lady think about that?

Ms Ward: I am a lawyer, and it is important to me that innocent people are not prevented from travelling, but that will sometimes happen. However, police officers will have to give written reasons for issuing summary notices, and a court will consider those reasons within 24 hours. That is an important safeguard.
We should get the matter into perspective. People stopped at ports or airports will be issued with a notice that prevents them from travelling. They will be told to report to a local magistrates court within 24 hours, and at a set time. They will not necessarily be imprisoned or detained; they will merely be prevented from travelling abroad to watch a football match. That is not comparable with suggestions that I have heard in other discussions about restriction of liberty.

Mr. Burnett: What will happen to entirely innocent people who decide to proceed on their journey, even though they have been arrested?

Ms Ward: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Bill provides that people who breach the notice will be committing a criminal offence. If people want to


clear their names, they should put their case in the magistrates court. If they are innocent, they will have nothing to hide and they will not attempt to abscond.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not sure that the hon. Lady realises that the Bill would allow a constable to detain a person for 24 hours before the notice is issued. Does she support that provision?

Ms Ward: I realise that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make the relevant conditions and guidelines clear, and that he will set out the conduct that police should consider to be appropriate for the issuance of summary notices.
Precedents also exist for the removal of passports, which is sometimes set as a bail condition when there are concerns about child abduction, for instance. That is absolutely clear, too.
In such cases, there is no charge or conviction either. A person is still regarded as innocent when on bail, yet a condition of bail may be removal of his passport and a restriction on his liberty, to the extent that he cannot travel abroad. I have never heard of anybody in the legal system or in the House complain about that legislation. It is reasonable, and I ask hon. Members to put all these matters in context.
I am very pleased that we have heard tonight from the Conservative Opposition and from the Liberal Democrats that they support in principle the first two main parts of the Bill—the combining of the domestic football banning order and the international football banning order and the withdrawal of the passport related to those banning orders. They are very sensible measures. Perhaps they should have been introduced some time ago, but we are in our present situation because of the progress of legislation. I am glad that we shall now see some movement.
With regard to the third main measure in the Bill—the football banning order—it is important for hon. Members to take into account the facts and figures from Euro 2000. It is relevant that 42 per cent. of those sent back to this country had convictions for other offences. Without this legislation, we would not be able to prevent that happening in the future.
The provision that a person given a summary notice is to appear before a magistrates court is also very important protection for the individual. However, I stress that as many of those orders as possible should be dealt with within 24 hours. I would not wish the Bill to be seen as simply an attempt to stop as many people as possible leaving the country to watch football matches, purely by their detention for a longer period and delay for as long as possible through the magistrates court process. I hope that my right hon. Friend will work closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department to provide as many opportunities as possible for magistrates courts to sit extended and unusual hours, and possibly even to sit in unusual places, to allow individuals to be dealt with by the courts and have their cases heard.
It is also very important that the legislation spells out in detail the convictions, the offences and the description of disorder. I am a football fan, a season ticket holder, at Watford and a regular attender there. We do not have these problems; we are a very friendly club, and do not have the level of violence that has led to the need for the Bill.
But when attending away games and watching international matches on television, including Euro 2000 matches, in local pubs or in London pubs, I have frequently been disappointed and disturbed by the chanting and the racist, xenophobic language used by those who purport to be fans. It is completely unnecessary. I hope that the legislation and the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the Football Association and football clubs—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Lady is receiving a note from the Whips."]—will also ensure that as many as possible of those conducting themselves in that unacceptable way are also brought before the courts.
I am slightly concerned about the clause that deals with the court taking into account any decision of a public authority whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. What decisions of other public authorities would normally be considered in a magistrates court, other than previous convictions?
The guidelines on the new police powers must be clear. It should be about behaviour, not appearance. I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone in the House, but I am certain that some Members of Parliament would, in the right football strip, look very menacing, and could fall foul of a keen constable. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that point carefully.
I welcome the Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. [Interruption.] The restrictions need to be put into context. It is important to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, given that England will be playing France in a friendly game in September.

Mr. Russell Brown: rose—

Ms Ward: I am sorry, but I am not prepared to give way.
As it is so easy to get to Paris these days, I hope that more families will participate and get tickets for the game. It is important that we create the right environment for them to do so.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect Labour Members from threatening behaviour by their Whips? It is perfectly obvious to those of us here that something of the kind is going on. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you can guarantee to the hon. Lady that she will be allowed to complete her speech in her own time and without harassment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is no restriction on the length of speeches in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Lady is quite capable of taking care of herself.

Ms Ward: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am more than capable of looking after myself and dealing with any form of harassment, from whichever side of the Chamber it may come.
Finally—in my own time, but finally—I welcome the Bill and urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support it. I thank the Home Secretary for taking on board many of the concerns that have been expressed so far. I hope that when the legislation is in place—before the end of


the summer, I hope—it will put an end to the thuggishness and violence that have shamed not only our football but our nation.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to contribute to the debate.
These debates are normally dominated by lawyers and football fans. Indeed, the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) pleaded guilty to both offences. I, however, speak simply as a humble parliamentarian and libertarian who believes that it is our duty to oppose bad law and to defend our liberties.
I have noticed over the years that when five factors combine, the invariable result is bad law. The first factor is a demand that something must be done, usually by those who have no specific idea in mind of what can be done to solve the problem. The second is undue, and usually unnecessary, haste about the legislation. The third is Front-Bench collusion, particularly if it is designed to suppress activity on the Back Benches. The fourth is an orgy of sanctimonious vilification of an unpopular minority group, and the fifth is a Government with no firm commitment to the principles that have upheld our liberties in the past. All those factors apply to the Bill; they account for its being so bad.
First, there was the demand that something be done. In the past, that demand tended to be limited to matters that fell under the jurisdiction of the Government who were being urged to deal with them. With the advent of television, however, Governments are required to do something about events that people observe on their screens—even though they occur abroad. Recently, we fought a war largely because the Government were urged to do something about matters in Kosovo that people saw on television.
The Home Secretary proposes that, to prevent unruly behaviour abroad, we should introduce measures that are more severe than those deemed necessary to constrain similar behaviour in our own country. The maintenance of law and order in Belgium, France or Germany is primarily a matter for the Belgian, French or German Governments. They should arrest, charge and—through their courts—convict anybody who breaches their laws and disrupts the peace of their country. If need be, they should take preventive action to avoid the offences occurring in the first place. If it is in their legal tradition, they should exclude from their country people whom they fear may disrupt the peace.
The British Government should co-operate with foreign Governments—in so far as that is compatible with the liberties of our citizens—to enable those Governments to uphold their laws. If we have evidence, such as television footage, that the law has been broken in Belgium and if the Belgian authorities do not have that particular film, we should make it available to them so that they can take due action against the lawbreakers. If it is proper and in accord with the liberties of our subjects, we should inform the Belgian or other Governments about the previous convictions of those who might want to enter their countries, so that those Governments can prevent the entry of those people if they want to do so.
The second factor that contributes to bad law is unnecessary haste—usually through the imposition of an artificial deadline. In this case, we have been told that there is to be a friendly match against France in the autumn before which it is essential that the legislation be passed into statute. However, during the past football season, there were matches abroad every few months—as there will be in the next.
We all know that the real reason for the Bill has nothing to do with that match in the autumn. It is because the Home Secretary had to introduce a measure—he had to appear to be doing something—before a decision was taken on the location of the 2006 world cup. He did not want to be blamed for inaction.

Mr. Russell Brown: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the measure because of the forthcoming international. Does the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) think that we should have asked the Football Association to postpone or abandon the match in order to give the House more time to debate the issue?

Mr. Lilley: That would certainly have been a better option than bringing in a bad Bill that undermines the liberties of the British subject. Better that one match be temporarily postponed than that our liberties be permanently undermined. I give way to the Minister who wants to bring that about.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The right hon. Gentleman has made his points clearly. Is he saying that there should be no legislation on this matter because he believes that it is for the French, German or Belgian authorities to deal with it? Is that his view?

Mr. Lilley: I am perfectly happy to accept the first two measures on the amalgamation of international and domestic banning orders if the House wants that and if their acceptance is reconcilable with our beliefs in the principles that I shall shortly describe. Unlike many hon. Members, however, I do not recognise the compelling need for the measures. If hon. Members see such a compelling need for them, they should first make sure that the Bill has proper and due consideration.
If the artificial time constraint of a friendly match against France in September is so important that we have to remove the liberty of British citizens to travel abroad, we should perhaps delay our own freedom to go abroad in August and instead devote sufficient time in the early weeks of the month to consider the Bill. However, Labour Members seem so anxious to go abroad that they are prepared to sign away in about a day and half the liberty of football fans to do so. That is a recipe for bad law.
The third factor, which, from time to time in the past, has given rise to bad law, is collusion between those on both Front Benches. I am glad to see that that collusion is beginning to loosen a bit and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is wisely considering the Bill and saying that it must be a good Bill if it is to receive our support. That requires significant changes to the measure that has been presented to us today.
I speak from experience. I had to introduce emergency legislation with the co-operation of the then Opposition. That was after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and


it was necessary to amend the legislation on the control of imports and exports, because we were taking sanctions against Iraq and treating the crisis as a wartime situation.
We sought the collusion of those on the then Opposition Front Bench and they said that it would be much simpler to reduce our relatively simple two-clause Bill to one clause so that the rebels on their Back Benches would have even less chance of creating an embarrassing scene by appearing to support Saddam Hussein. We removed one minor clause that said that, in future, orders would receive proper consideration by the House and I was subsequently criticised by the Scott report for so doing. The report was probably right. I should have not given in to those on the Opposition Front Bench to reduce the Bill and to limit debate so that we could get the Bill through quickly and without embarrassment. I warn those on both Front Benches that collusion can lead to bad legislation.
The fourth factor that gives rise to bad law is Governments who lack any firm principles or any commitment to firm principles. I am afraid that this Government have made it a principle not to have any principles and that approach has infected their legislation.
However, there are certain clear principles to which we should adhere. The first principle is that the restrictions on the freedoms of the subject are a severe punishment, and the restriction on freedom to travel is a particularly onerous punishment.
The second principle is that there should be no punishment unless a crime has been committed. This Bill specifically states that the offence of disorder need not constitute a crime not only in this country, but in any other country in the world. Yet people will, de facto, be punished for doing something that is not a crime.
The third principle is that conviction for criminal offences should be based on criminal and not on civil standards of proof. People should not be detained and arrested because, as it says in the Bill, it appears to an officer that certain conditions have been met. There should be a substantial criminal standard of proof that should not be waived as it has been in the Bill.
Finally, and above all, a person should be considered innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. However, this Bill is so framed that someone can be detained—the detention effectively constitutes punishment—and a banning order introduced because of a decision by public authorities in another country or because he has been removed from a foreign country. The Home Secretary said that the courts would never act simply on the basis that a chap was a hooligan because he had been arrested or expelled by a foreign Government. Yet it was the Home Secretary himself who justified the introduction of the Bill solely on the grounds that 900 people had been arrested by the Belgian Government. The Home Secretary used an analysis of those 900 people to tell us the sort of person who, on a normal probability, could be assumed to be a football hooligan. He then said that the courts should not, on a normal standard of probability, use that sort of evidence to impose a banning order on someone.
If the Home Secretary can justify his own Bill with that sort of evidence, we can be sure that, once the courts are given this power and duty to impose banning orders on someone who, on the balance of probability, will cause trouble abroad—taking into account the fact that the person has been arrested or expelled, if not charged or convicted—the courts will feel obliged to do just that.
These features of the Bill are wrong and damaging in themselves, but, worst of all, they constitute a dangerous precedent to enshrine in our law. We are told not to worry; it is just a narrow group of people being affected. We are told that it is foolish to talk about the measure being extended as a precedent elsewhere. We are told that it is we logically minded people who always worry about such things. Yet the very people who say that justify the Bill in terms of often rather tenuous precedents that they are drawing with other legislation.
The best and most substantive precedent drawn on is the anti-social behaviour orders. That made me realise how worrying a feature of our law they are, because they are now being used to justify similar legislation to extend the arbitrary power of the forces of law and order. Those concerned use more spurious examples, but they use precedent to justify this Bill and they will use this Bill as a precedent to justify other law.
These proposals could be used as a precedent to justify restriction on travelling abroad to potentially rowdy demonstrations. We could be pressured by a foreign Government who do not like Greenpeace activists. The French Government are rather proud of blowing up Greenpeace activists, and they may not like them coming from this country to France to pursue their environmental objectives. We might be urged to take measures against them. The precedent will be there on the statue book, and it will be hard to deny in that case.
The underlying feature of the Bill is that it takes away people's British passports. We used to have decent passports. I have here the rather mangy burgundy-coloured variety that we now have, which at least still has in its front pages the words
Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as maybe necessary.
It is a bit rich for us to ask foreign Governments to treat all our citizens, without exception, on that basis when we are to deprive them of their passports when they have not been convicted of offences. How can we expect our passport to be respected abroad when we treat it with so little respect when people get to the ports?

Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a problem with people who manifestly behave in a manner that would be a criminal offence in this country, but whom other countries export back here without prosecuting them. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we should do as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to be suggesting and extend this country's criminal jurisdiction to other countries so that we can prosecute those people according to the standard of proof that the right hon. Gentleman wants and secure criminal convictions?

Mr. Lilley: The Bill suggests that if people are expelled from a foreign country, which does not see fit to charge or convict them, they are none the less to be treated by our courts as if they had committed an offence. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that that is right, and I do not want it enshrined in law. If foreign countries do not see fit to charge and convict people, we do not need to do that job for them. Hon. Members say that there is a problem of thuggish behaviour; they are right, but that does not justify thuggish law.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate, although I am sure that we all wish that there was no need for the debate and the legislation. Unfortunately, events in the past few months and years have proved that it is an absolute necessity. In the spirit of some contributions to the debate, I will avoid the inter-party dispute because, hopefully, we will try to achieve consensus at some point.
I was in Charleroi with my family during Euro 2000 and I witnessed some of the scenes there. That is why I am keen on much of the Bill.

Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Murphy: No, not at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps have an opportunity to intervene later in my speech.
After the 1998 world cup in France, I contacted English and Scottish premiership clubs to ask them what they thought the Government should do and what legislation they should enact. I also asked them what they had done to tackle hooliganism. Many have taken firm action, but they acknowledge that they could do more. Prophetically for the Government, the club spokesmen, the senior ground safety officers and the chairmen of Aston Villa and Southampton said clearly that hooligans should have their passports taken away. That is the opinion of those in the industry who want respect for the good name of their club and their country, and it directly contradicts what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has just said.
Two of our esteemed clubs, Middlesbrough and Newcastle, said that they had problems with data protection legislation, which prevents them from taking effective action. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point in summing up, or later in Committee. Another club said that there is no proper communication between the courts and the clubs, and clubs are not informed when convictions are secured. Perhaps the Home Secretary could identify whether the Bill, or any likely amendments to it, will meet concerns about data protection and co-operation between the courts and the clubs. Hooligans who are convicted could then be reported to the club that they supposedly follow, and which they have shamed, which might be at the other end of the country from where the crime took place.
I have also carried out research into the huge number of parliamentary questions on hooliganism. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I should like some of that information to be used in future research. It is an unfortunate fact that English second division clubs have more football restriction and banning orders than do first division clubs. Why is that, when they have smaller stadiums, fewer supporters and a smaller fan base? What is it about those clubs, those towns or the mentality of those supporters that means that they have more orders against them than supporters of much bigger clubs in the first division?
We also hear that the hooligans are all young men. Of course, according to all the recent parliamentary questions, the average age of men who rightly have banning and restriction orders against them is 31. The youngest has just passed his 16th birthday and, believe it or not, the oldest British citizen currently under a banning

or restriction order is 61 years of age. That is a huge age range. The average may be 31, and there are a good number of teenagers, but that gentleman, whom I will not name, although his name appears in a parliamentary answer, is shortly to celebrate his 62nd birthday under a domestic football banning order.
I support the Bill. I have followed football throughout Europe, and I follow my own football team. The lesson of Charleroi is clear. I understand that 42 per cent. of those who were there already had criminal convictions, although not specifically for football hooliganism. Some of those who were there may have been banned by their clubs from attending their games, not through a domestic football banning order, but simply through club policy.
We must protect the innocent, but we must also take action against people who are banned by their clubs from attending their own matches but who can travel abroad because they do not have a criminal conviction. The Bill introduces an important clamp-down. It gets rid of the daft distinction between football-related criminal activity and violence, and other violent activity. It brings them under the same legislation, so that police officers at the ports can track those who are banned by the clubs and those who have a criminal record but not an international banning order.
Those are the people who should have been stopped if there had been a foolproof way of dealing with the problem before Charleroi. We could have prevented some of the 42 per cent. who fall into those categories from wreaking havoc in mainland Europe, where their behaviour was all too public and shamed our nation.
According to schedule 2, the Bill will apply only to British citizens. I checked in the House of Commons Library this evening and found that there are officially 2,242,000 non-British nationals living in the United Kingdom. As I understand it from my reading of the Bill, they would not be covered by its provisions. There may be some logic to that, and I would welcome an explanation from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Many of those people care passionately about football and the vast majority are law-abiding citizens, but the tiny minority who are not would not be covered by the legislation. Some may choose to follow England, despite not being British nationals, but they may follow the clubs and, of course, their own country's team. Arsenal has a French manager and many French players, and there are 46,000 French nationals living in London. Chelsea has an Italian manager and the culture of the club is increasingly Italian, and there are 42,000 Italians living in London. The vast majority are law abiding, but why would they not be covered by the Bill if they travelled to a football game in another country?
There are particular problems associated with Scotland, and I accept that there is no easy solution. It is in the nature of devolution. This House no longer has the power to legislate for Scotland; nor should it. A possible longer-term solution is for the Scottish Parliament to consider how it should act and react to the loophole that would allow English nationals to travel to Scotland as a way of getting out of the United Kingdom. Football hooligans from the north of England may even find it easier to travel out of Scotland.
I do not mean that as a criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is not his responsibility or within his legislative competence. It is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which I hope will listen and act.
The only other Scottish issue is that many Scottish supporters, including me, often travel abroad via London. I have the advantage of being the only teetotal, non-smoking vegetarian Member of Parliament from Scotland—I lead a very exciting life—but I do not represent the archetypal perception, or misconception, of Scots. Many Scots with whom I have travelled internationally enjoy leisure and alcohol before leaving the country: they are quite boisterous. Nevertheless, Scottish fans have had a fantastic reputation for many years—although I am not complacent about that—and have won awards in many international competitions. Although Scotland perhaps has one of the poorest teams, it has some of the best supporters.
What consideration might the Home Secretary give those matters? Many Scots have no record of violence or disorder when following their national team. They simply enjoy themselves while nevertheless displaying the characteristics of boisterousness and of perhaps having had a drink. If my right hon. Friend cannot reply this evening, perhaps he will address those points in Committee. I hope that we get beyond the inter-party dispute and pass proper legislation. We must not blame each other; and, come the summer games—not just those involving England, but the champions league matches next month—we must not export violence and mayhem to our European partners.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Conservative Members are co-operating with the Government to bring this matter forward, but I deplore the rush; and to use the France match of 2 September to justify pushing through a Bill that involves so many civil liberties aspects is entirely unreal and almost disingenuous. I have a nasty feeling that we had not dropped out of the world cup bidding when these issues were first mentioned and that this hurried legislation may have a good deal to do with that.
Any football hooligan who goes to France on 2 September thinking that he might get away with it as some hooligans got away with it in Belgium has another think coming. The French police are extremely tough on these matters, which is why the Bill involves civil liberties aspects. One of my constituents—a young man—was in France for the 1984 match, which was celebrated at the time because so many Brits were picked up. He was of sufficiently high calibre to have been allowed by his firm, which was a household name, to use a spare room in the George V hotel. He was picked up after the match and accused of violence and causing damage, which he absolutely denied. The British embassy found him only after he had spent two days in a suburban police station in which, he alleged, he had been beaten around the head having been made to wear a motor cycle helmet, and then forced to plead guilty to a minor offence, which he had not committed. We must not let any football hooligans think that they can go to France with impunity.
There is no reason to rush the Bill. We will co-operate, but serious human rights issues are involved, the first of which concerns the power to detain simply because an

officer, on viewing the behaviour of a young man leaving the country, believes it necessary to investigate whether that young man may have committed an offence. I refer to proposed new section 21A(2):
If it appears to a constable in uniform that the behaviour of a person present before him is such that immediate enquiries should be made to determine whether or not the condition in section 14B(2) above is met, the constable may exercise the power in subsection (3)
which is
to detain the person in his custody
for up to 24 hours.
Will the Home Secretary, if he would be kind enough, or the Minister of State explain why that provision is not illegal in terms of being contrary to the European convention on human rights? Why will it not be illegal come October, when the convention is passed into our law? Article 5.1 of the convention states:
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
Article 5.1(c) refers to
the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence.
Those conditions are not satisfied in the Bill. The proposed new section 21A(2) merely says that if it appears to a police constable
that the behaviour of a person present before him is such that immediate enquiries should be made
he may exercise that power. That is entirely different from bringing the person before a court to determine whether he has committed an offence, or is likely to do so. I believe that the provision is unacceptable, and should be removed.

Mr. Hogg: It is also unlawful.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Well, it is not unlawful yet, but it will be in October, and it is contrary to our obligations under the convention.
I heard the Home Secretary say that he had received advice from a senior QC who is much respected. I know that such advice is not normally published, but if the right hon. Gentleman felt that that was appropriate—[Interruption.] I thought I had heard the Home Secretary say that he had received advice from David Pannick QC, but perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should get that advice!

Mr. Straw: With respect, I have said no such thing, here or anywhere else. In any event, the right hon. and learned Gentleman of all people will know that it is never the practice of Governments to publish the legal advice that Ministers receive.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary is absolutely right—and it is not usually the practice of Ministers to say that they have received advice from a particular source. I apologise to the Home Secretary if he did not say that; if he did not, I shall find out from Hansard which of his colleagues did.
My second point relates to the proposed new section 14C(3), which states that
violence" and "disorder" are not limited to…conduct which constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or any country outside the United Kingdom.
I ask the Home Secretary to look at that again, very carefully.
I am content for a banning order to be imposed if there are proper grounds for the magistrates to consider that necessary under the Act, provided that it is proved—according to the criminal standard of proof—that the person concerned has committed a crime in the past, or has behaved in a way that constitutes a crime under the law of this country. I would be content to change the law—although the Bill does not do this—allowing us to take into account conduct that took place in, say, Belgium, where people threw chairs at the police, and to prosecute those people here. Such behaviour would obviously be a crime here; indeed, I am sure it is a crime in Belgium. That would be satisfactory. What I find wholly unsatisfactory is that people can be banned for something so vague that it does not constitute a criminal offence.
There is another serious human rights point. In relation to criminality, the convention rightly requires certainty.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Using abusive language to a steward at a football match might well not constitute a crime, but if the person concerned was removed, everyone else's freedom to enjoy the match in relative peace would be secured. The provision may be designed to deal with such cases.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, but he is on shaky ground. If a person used insulting language to a steward at a football match entirely in private and he was an exceptionally calm steward, it might not be conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, or insulting behaviour. However, the overwhelming probability is that such a circumstance and the circumstance in which it would be necessary and desirable to have a ban would constitute a crime. Almost every example we have been given would constitute a crime.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I accept that that would not normally be a criminal offence, but many clubs are plcs and such behaviour would result in the person losing membership of the club. Despite being blacklisted or losing their membership, under current legislation such people could still travel abroad or to domestic matches to support the club.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: This is where civil liberties come in, and it is one of the reasons why the Bill should not be rushed. I hope that we will have time to deal with these issues, and that the Home Secretary will be a little flexible in the next few days. I shall certainly do my best to focus on the right points, and not to speak overlong on any occasion. If we move away from what constitutes criminality, we will be in dangerous country.
I shall make one other point about the civil liberties and human rights aspects. The Home Secretary has rightly pointed out that about 30 per cent. of all people under the age of 30 have committed a criminal offence that would

make them liable to a banning order. That is one of the reasons I am worried about the police being able to hold people for 24 hours to see whether they can bring them before the magistrates. It is rather like fishing for ducks at a fair—the game one played as a child. One pays one's money, pulls out a duck and has a one in three chance of getting a prize. For whatever reason, a police officer plucks a young man out of the crowd and, because 30 per cent. have committed a criminal offence, he has a one in three chance of being able to get a banning order.
That is why I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted a sunset clause. I think that Labour Members would agree with us that although we should have a firm law and order policy, it is essential in this and in any country that it is a fair policy. It would be draconian to enable people who may have committed an offence many years ago in different circumstances to be plucked out of a crowd, brought before the courts and made subject to a ban that prevents them from travelling abroad for the next three or five years. There may be a great many of these football matches. I should like to table a parliamentary question asking how many periods in a year would be covered by these football matches, because civil liberties could be heavily eroded.

Mr. Hogg: The point that my right hon. and learned Friend emphasises sits ill with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which offences are spent. The situation that he describes involves old offences which in ordinary circumstances would be spent, but not for the purposes of the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend has posited a question to which I do not know the answer. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the position on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I hope that it applies. If it does not, that would be wrong and it ought to be made clear that it should apply.
The Home Secretary has given weight to the fact that magistrates will be careful whom they ban. I hope that they will be robust and not ban too freely. A person may be brought before them who was convicted of a minor public order offence many years ago but has otherwise been a respectable citizen and has spent a lot of money on his holiday. I hope that such people will not be too lightly stopped and banned, but they will probably miss their holiday anyway, whatever happens.
The Home Secretary should think what pressure we will be putting on the justices if someone has to appear before a court within 24 hours. It will be someone who has been plucked out by the police, who has some previous offence, or who has been sent back from Belgium by a public authority. The magistrates will have to take the risk that, if they let him go, he might offend. They are not likely to take that risk; they are likely to ban him.
The legislation is difficult. I go along with it, provided that there is a clearly established criminal offence and that the section that states that one can be stopped for 24 hours with no comeback while the police make inquiries is reconsidered. If we go through the Bill carefully and remove those unacceptable factors, I think that we can go along with it. However, this legislation is being rushed, it has big human and civil rights implications, and we should proceed with caution.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: This has been something of a strange day. Earlier, we heard the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) talking forthrightly about collusion between those on the Front Benches and the dangers of co-operation. If there are such dangers in that co-operation, why did those on the Opposition Front Bench offer it in the first place? That is the difficulty that I am experiencing.
Also, on a day when those on the Opposition Front Bench have made such great claims about the need for the scrutiny of legislation and the ancient procedures of the House, it appears from what they have said tonight that they have not even grasped the way in which legislation is scrutinised. The Second Reading of a Bill is when its general principles, aims and objectives are discussed. If one agrees with those and, broadly, with the means of achieving them, the Bill passes to a stage at which it can be amended. If I understand it correctly, those on the Opposition Front Bench are recommending that Conservative Members should abstain should there be a Division.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) perfectly describes someone who firmly agrees with the principles, aims and objectives of the Bill, but has great concerns about its detail. In such a case, surely qualified support should be given on Second Reading, on the basis that, if the required amendments are not made, Third Reading would be opposed. I find it difficult to understand the tactics of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I shall come to the meat of the Bill. First, I must stake my claim. I have supported a football club since I was a very small boy. I am proud of boasting that I am one of the few Liverpool supporters who most people will ever meet who first went to see them when they were in the second division.
In the years during which I have followed my club, I have seen acts of violence, but for every such act that I have observed, I have seen hundreds of acts of kindness. I have heard insults, but for every insult, I have heard hundreds of examples of wit and camaraderie. We are dealing with a small minority of people who commit offences that we all find heinous; that we all repudiate; and that we all want to be stopped. I think that there is common ground among us there: we all want to stop actions that bring incredible shame to our country and to a game that I love.
Furthermore, in the past few years, I have been the joint coach of one of the Ramsgate youth football teams. I took a group of youngsters from the ages of nine to 15. I retired as their manager at the end of the close season. I can honestly say that, because of that involvement with sport and football, every one of those boys, some of whom come from among the poorest council estates in the entire country, has turned into a decent young man. To have that sport, which can achieve so much for people, sullied by hooligans gives me intense pain. That is why I am prepared to support a Bill that can go some way to clamping down on that pain and to excise the sickness from the game.
I cannot tell hon. Members what causes football hooliganism. What I can tell them is that, if explosive chemicals are mixed and a match is thrown into the pot,

we often get a bang. Two of the most explosive ingredients that I can think of are testosterone and alcohol. When those two ingredients are exposed to what is effectively a tribal atmosphere, we sometimes get results that are undesirable. If we are going to control that, there is a lot more to it than just what is in the Bill. We need to think beyond the Bill in considering how we will do that.
All tickets for international matches should be sold in advance; I alluded to that in an intervention on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They should be sold to identified individuals. We should clamp down throughout Europe on ticket touting—the disposal of tickets to people who have not bought the tickets through ordinary channels. We need to look carefully at alcohol controls. It was obvious during the recent European championships that there was far less trouble where alcohol controls were in place and where low-alcohol beer was available than in places where those alcohol controls were not in place.
I understand the libertarian view that some people are taking. They are right to want an appropriate burden of proof when the Bill is enforced, but some people have missed the fact that the punishment within the Bill is not prison. It is not a fine. It is not to be birched or sent to the gallows. It is to not watch a football match—to be made to stay at home and watch it on television. Let us get that into perspective.
Nevertheless, we need to look at the Bill's limitations and at the things in it that we should try to improve at later stages in its passage. Let me go through some of those, as I see them. The Bill only deals with England and Wales; that issue has been touched on. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be aware that the Scots have even more difficulty getting a decent football team together at the moment than the English. These days, people can probably play for Scotland if they have a second cousin who was born in Scotland.

Mr. Efford: The second cousin may only have drunk some Scotch.

Dr. Ladyman: Exactly. The question I have to ask myself is: if someone claims to have Scottish relatives, does he get away with it? Can he be a Scottish football hooligan and therefore not be covered by the English and Welsh legislation? We need to clarify that.
Types of behaviour are covered by the Bill. New section 14C(2)(b) in schedule 1 refers to "insulting words." I remember as a kid singing a song to the tune of "Bread of Heaven" at football grounds. It went:
Man United, Man United, Man United are no good.
It is pretty innocuous by modern day standards. I regard it as being factually entirely accurate, but there may be some Manchester United supporters who would find it insulting. However, how will those "insulting" words be differentiated from other insulting words?
Additionally, although singing that song at the Liverpool end of a football ground might be regarded as unsporting, it would not be regarded as insulting. However, if one sang it in a public house full of Manchester United supporters, one probably would be inciting a breach of the peace. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether the legislation should be amended to require magistrates to consider the


context of the act. It would be legitimate to remove a passport if a person had intended to incite a breach of the peace.
I ask my right hon. Friend to take into account one other matter in our later consideration of the Bill. The European club championship campaigns starts in September and continues until May. Of course I hope that many of our clubs will get into the finals. However, will those who are subject to banning orders have to hand in their passports in September and not regain them until May, when the competition has finished, or will they have to hand in their passport each time their club plays in a match? Does the legislation clearly state how the provision will operate?

Mr. Efford: One of the possible ways round that problem—and the problem of people travelling from Scotland or from another embarkation point not covered by the legislation—is to require people subject to orders to attend a police station when the game is being held. That, rather than concentrating on passports, might solve some of those problems.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the remedies that we might consider.
Having expressed those practical concerns about the legislation's operation and asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that those issues are addressed later in the Bill's passage, I have to say that I fully support the Bill's principle and what we are trying to achieve. I hope that all hon. Members, even at this late hour, will support the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Simon Burns: This is the eighth piece of legislation on this subject that the House has considered in the past 15 years. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that it would be utterly wrong for such controversial legislation to be rushed through Parliament in one day. I therefore welcome the fact that we shall have two days in which to discuss the Bill. If we can also have next Wednesday to consider it, so much the better.
Since the Bill was published, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have been more than prepared to meet hon. Members and Members of another place. They have also been prepared to listen and to change the draft Bill—for the better, I think.
The Home Secretary was absolutely right to say that the issues that this legislation has to address are different from the issues addressed by relevant previous legislation. Although the common thread in all the legislation is to deal with football hooliganism—which, sadly, has for too long been a problem for our country and our national sport—as the right hon. Gentleman said, that problem has effectively shifted from domestic matches primarily to overseas international matches.
The figures show how the problem has shifted. Up to a point, that shift is a measure of the cumulative effect and success of previous legislation. As hon. Members will know, between 1992–93 and 1998–99 attendance at football matches has increased from 20.6 million to

25.25 million. At the same time, arrests in this country have declined from 4,588 to 3,341—a reduction of about 28 per cent. in seven years. That is significant, but, as I said earlier, the problem has shifted overseas and it has shifted with a vengeance.
I would have preferred legislation to be introduced at the beginning of the Session so that it could be taken through both Houses in a more conventional way, but, as that did not happen, there is no point in my wasting the time of the House reliving that battle. It is now important that we have legislation that is relevant to the problems facing the game of football and law and order in this country. We must make sure not only that it is relevant, but that it is workable, and properly, decently and correctly drafted.
I fully accept and support the measures proposed by the Home Secretary to merge international and domestic banning orders. I also strongly support the provisions that if someone is convicted of a football-related offence, the courts will be expected to impose a banning order on that individual in addition to the punishment for the offence that they have committed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Since the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, the courts have not carried through the wishes of Parliament. Although we do not have the figures for the number of convictions under the 1999 Act since 26 September last year, since that period there have been 36 international banning orders and 255 domestic banning orders. The obscene variation between the two figures shows that the anecdotal evidence that has been bandied about during the past two weeks is fully justified. When we have the figure showing the number of convictions since September, it will more than bear out the anecdotal evidence. The Home Secretary certainly needed to take action to deal with the reluctance of the courts and I warmly welcome his initiative in the Bill.
I also welcome the fact that banning orders will be extended to people who have been convicted of crimes that are not football related. That is an important measure. The fact that an individual has a conviction for an act of violence or disorder shows that they have a propensity for such acts and that there is a likelihood that they could reoffend in future, particularly in a football environment where there is a propensity for hooliganism and violence among a small minority of people who follow the game. They are not necessarily supporters, but follow the game as leeches in order to carry on their own agendas, which may involve drug dealing, counterfeit tickets and other offences.
I also welcome the Home Secretary's proposals to allow the courts to impose the withdrawal of passports for a control period of five days for a designated match for unconvicted individuals if the courts are satisfied that if those people travel abroad, they will commit acts of violence or hooliganism. The Home Secretary knows that I dearly wanted to include such a provision in my Bill last year. For a variety of reasons, I concluded that it was not something that a private Member could get through Parliament, and that the Government should use their majority to that end.
I share one concern that various hon. Members have expressed already, and it centres on proposed new section 21(A). I do not disagree with the principle of what the Home Secretary wants to do, but I am worried about the


practicalities of making the Bill's provisions work. I am also uneasy that someone could be detained for up to 24 hours. If magistrates are made available at ports and airports, people will be able to have access to a court very quickly. That may not amount to what one hon. Member called a "port in a court", but it would aid better natural justice.
The Home Secretary has already built safeguards into the Bill, such as the sunset clause and an annual review along the lines of the similar provision in the prevention of terrorism provisions. I hope that he will think again over the weekend and see whether, without compromising the basic principle behind what he seeks to do, he can improve the delivery of the measures in the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the question of civil liberties, which Parliament has a duty to defend and protect. I would be less than candid if I did not admit that I am beginning to tire of hearing constantly about the civil liberties of the minority and of never hearing about the civil liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding football fans. Such people only want to go to football matches with their families and children for entertainment in the afternoon or evening, free of threatening behaviour or actual violence.
We cannot disregard or disdain the civil liberties of the minority, but, just for once, I hope that we can pay attention to the civil liberties of the majority. For too long, they have been forgotten and placed second to the interests of the minority.
Another complaint in society is that the state too often bends over backwards to justify the perpetrators of crime, or to reduce the blame attached to them at the expense of victims. I think that the House agrees that more attention should be given to helping victims of crime. The same principle should be applied to the civil liberties of the majority of law-abiding and decent citizens.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I rise to support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said earlier, it is clear that some of the detail will have to be fleshed out during its Committee and other stages, but, in general, the Bill is well thought-out and necessary.
Indeed, the majority of our constituents, having seen the events in Charleroi and Holland, would find it surprising if we were not seen to be taking the quick and decisive action that the Government are taking now. In the real world, they would find it bewildering that their own Parliament did not regard the problem with the same urgency as they did.
I want to make three general statements about the Bill. I very much agree with the point that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made. The arguments about the Bill concentrate on the clash between the rights of individuals and on infringements of human rights. It is incumbent upon us as a Parliament to recognise that society restricts the rights of the individual. In a democracy, there is always a clash between individual rights and the public interest. The rights of the individual must not be protected at the expense of creating contempt for the law and allowing major public disturbances. In curtailing the civil liberties of some, we are protecting the common good.
What is the common good? Here, the hon. Gentleman made a valid point. The common good is the right of the vast majority of individuals to carry on their lawful

business. It is the right of individuals to drink and enjoy themselves without fear of attack and without fear of violence around them. It is the right of the vast majority of individuals to be protected from xenophobic and racist abuse. It is the common good for the vast majority of individuals to be able to go to football matches without fearing for their personal safety.
Our constituents, the people of this country, demand that we respect the rights of the majority and do not respect the right of the individual to the extent that the rights of the majority are curtailed. Very often, we reverse the law so that the law-abiding majority feel that they are being persecuted in order to protect the rights of the individual. If we do not get this right, as we have seen in debates over the past few weeks, the whole law is brought into disrepute, and we, too, are brought into disrepute, because ordinary people ask, "How can you do these things, which do not relate to our experience in our everyday lives?"

Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that critics of the Bill want to protect innocent people from being wrongly punished? Is he saying that it is all right to have a few innocent people wrongly punished so that the majority do not have to see offensive pictures on their television screens?

Mr. Coaker: What I am saying is that, sometimes, the law protects a few individuals at the expense of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. That is what we want to get right.
Secondly, I ask my right hon. Friend to discuss with governments in the rest of Europe ensuring that when people commit wrongs in other countries they feel the force of the law in those countries. Failure in this respect undermines the situation. I cannot remember the statistics, but I know that large numbers of people were arrested in Belgium and deported having been guilty of the most serious offences—everything that we saw on television, with chairs being thrown across squares, bars being wrecked, people being attacked. Yet how many of those involved have been prosecuted for any crime? Hardly any.
Unless we can ensure that people's actions have a consequence, they will hold the law in contempt. We must make sure that wherever the law is broken, whether here or abroad, those concerned are brought to book. I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can to continue to speak to other European Governments, so that many of the hooligans guilty of the actions we saw on our television screens can no longer be at home boasting of their achievements abroad and gaining ridiculous kudos for them, suffering no consequences for their actions. Being able to continue to do that would encourage them to carry on and act with impunity.
My third and final point is a general one. We can take immediate measures about this problem, as the Bill does. We can talk about crime, say that we need more police on the street and do some of the things that I have mentioned on previous occasions. However, we must also recognise the peculiar English problem that some of our young people have. Why do we generate this xenophobic, racist culture in so many of our communities? Why do some of our young men respond to a patriotism and pride in our country that we all feel—none more so than everyone here—and the desire to support their national


team when they go abroad by getting drunk, fighting and hurling xenophobic abuse? That is a fundamental question for Parliament and the country. The behaviour at football matches abroad is often the same as that in our cities, streets and towns. We must understand why that happens and do something about it.
I hope that we can build a consensus to do something about the problem. We must tackle the problem of why such a xenophobic, racist attitude is prevalent among a significant number of our young men. Otherwise, while all the measures that we take will have some impact and make a difference to some problems, and a few more football matches may take place without that sort of behaviour, we will not get to the crux of the problem because we will simply be treating the symptoms.
I say this with a great deal of passion. As right hon. and hon. Members know from the debates that I generate in the House, we have a very real problem with anti-social behaviour, racism and xenophobia. My right hon. Friend talks about the need to conduct research into the problem. I hope that the Home Office can carry out that very urgent task and do something as quickly as possible. The results could contribute to the debate about the problem in addition to all the other steps that we are taking, in the Bill and elsewhere.

Mr. Roger Gale: When he was playing to the gallery at the end of his speech, the Home Secretary waved around a press release from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), claiming that we would pledge support for controlling football hooliganism. The right hon. Gentleman then sought to pray in aid that, as if he had a right to support for a bad Bill.
Marseille was two years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) introduced his amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill nearly two years ago. Some of us came to the House and debated this subject on the morning of Friday 16 April 1999. It ill behoves the Home Secretary to come to the House and, because a football match is being played in the autumn, expect and demand support for bad legislation that he is trying to force through on the hoof. He does not deserve support.
I have very little time and I wish to make some serious points. However, the Home Secretary needs to take it on board that if he wants any support for the Bill, he will have to do a lot more homework to get it into a fit shape to go through either House of Parliament. If he does not, he does not deserve, and will not receive, support from many on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches and, I suspect—if they are honest—from many on his own Benches as well.
The Bill, as is blindingly obvious, has no writ in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Any of the people who wish to travel abroad and who live in the north of England can easily go to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Belfast and travel with impunity from there to any place on the continent. That is a flaw in the Bill. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that his writ does not run there. If this legislation is to have any meaning at all, he must get to grips with the real problem, instead of paying lip service in the hope

that, somewhere out there, people will think that he is talking a good war so he must be acting a good war against what we all recognise is a real problem.
Most people who go abroad leave through the gateway county of Kent—one of whose constituencies I have the privilege to represent. I am concerned about the measure's potential effects on the passenger service from the port of Ramsgate and its current effect on Dover. As the Home Secretary signally failed to get to grips with the problems posed by asylum seekers and economic migrants, the county constabulary of Kent has its work cut out trying to control illegal contraband and illegal immigration with insufficient resources.
Above and beyond all the points raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by some Labour Members, I have a serious question for the Home Secretary, who is leaving the Chamber. Before he does so, will he pay attention to this point? He is the Home Secretary; he has responsibility for the constabulary. When will he provide the resources for the constabulary of Kent to police the port of Dover—not for only one day of the year, not for five days, but for 365 days?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that we should not be too concerned with the civil liberties of a minority. Some of us realise that, as the overwhelming majority of people in this country go through Dover on their way to the continent, we need to be concerned with the civil liberties of the majority—all those innocent people who could be caught by this measure. That includes every Member of the House and every member of their family who goes abroad wholly innocently. Under the measure, any of those people could be picked up by the constabulary of Kent and held overnight. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State may think that is satisfactory, but I do not. The Bill does not deserve our support.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members have said most of what could be said on the subject. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has left the Chamber. He gave a good analysis of the problems of football violence. I disagreed only with his solution—this Bill.
I have concerns when we rush legislation through the House, as we have often done in the past. An early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) drew attention to the fact that vast amounts of that legislation is never used. The measures lie in the statute book while the House basks in the warm glow of having done something useful. In reality, we have enacted measures that are not well thought out and that, in this case, have serious implications for the civil liberties of other people, organisations and groups.
I do not condone the violence that occurred in Brussels, Charleroi, Marseille or anywhere else; nor do I condone the appalling behaviour of some of those who claim to support the English national football side. Evidence suggests that a racist organisation is involved. A serious problem is the promotion by the popular press of the most backward forms of xenophobia over England games. We pay the price in the violence that results.
It is instructive to bear in mind the different responses of Belgium and Holland during Euro 2000. The Belgian police were extremely heavy-handed; much drink was on sale; there was a large amount of violence and many arrests were made.
The Dutch police were much more restrained. The alcohol was low strength. There was also that wonderful Dutch institution—the Amsterdam coffee houses. They had a good and salutary effect on a large number of people who might otherwise have been up to no good. Those people probably never went anywhere—perhaps they stayed in the coffee houses. I shall leave the issue of coffee houses with my good hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West but ask the Home Secretary to reflect—there is plenty of time to do so in coffee houses—on what might have been.
We must consider the effects of the over-hyping of national football on the youth of this country. I live near Arsenal football ground and go to some of the games. Thousands of youths in the area run around wearing Arsenal shirts, and the club is their life.
Arsenal is a well-run club and there are no problems in its ground. However, problems take place outside football grounds and Arsenal is not immune from them. There were appalling and disgusting scenes locally when Arsenal lost the UEFA cup final to Galatasaray. A number of supporters decided to take it out on every Turkish kebab house in the district. That was abominable.
We have to ask ourselves hard questions about the racism that surrounds football when national feelings are built up. A few years ago, I went to a friendly between England and Cameroon at Wembley. I was disgusted by the attitude taken towards the Cameroon national side and towards individual Cameroon players and by the unbelievable ignorance of many supporters who did not know where Cameroon was, but knew that they did not like it.
I compared notes with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and she went to a match between Jamaica and Brazil. There was none of the backward xenophobia and racism or violence between supporters on that occasion. As a society, we must face the problems of violence and xenophobia that surround our football and of the violent atmosphere in which many young people are brought up.
I have no truck whatever with the violence that is associated with football, but will my hon. Friend the Minister reflect on the nature of the Bill that is being introduced? Liberty, which was formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, has produced a briefing on the Bill that does not find much favour with the Home Office. For more than 50 years, it has produced briefings and explanations of legislation that successive Home Secretaries and Ministers have not liked. That is no reason to ignore them, but to listen.
Liberty has pointed to serious deficiencies in the Bill and in particular questioned the powers of a constable who will be able to decide whether someone is likely to be travelling with intent to cause trouble and whether he has caused trouble in the past. Under that power, the constable can remove or reduce that person's liberty. Once the House has agreed to such a principle, where will it end? Can it be extended to other sports? What about cricket supporters who might go to the Caribbean and cause trouble there and behave in a disgusting fashion at

the end of a three-day or five-day game? Alternatively, is the Bill a one-off provision to overcome an immediate problem?
I commend to the House the briefing from the Law Society that points out serious legal deficiencies in the Bill. It takes the view that the power to stop people could be contrary to articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. If the Bill goes through the House in great haste by next Monday and it becomes law and it is then ruled out by the convention, what will we have actually achieved?
I ask the House consider what will happen if the Bill does not work. If it is rushed through and similar scenes occur in Paris in September in the so-called friendly between England and France, in the world cup campaign or in the champions league campaign, what will the House do then? Research has to be carried out and we must consider seriously the way in which violence in society and xenophobia around our national side are built up. We all have a responsibility to do something about them.
Rushed legislation seldom works. The Bill might grab headlines and it might make many people feel good, but it is not likely to lead to a resolution of the problem. It has dangerous precedents, so that is why I cannot support it in the form that it has been presented to the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Home Office fully understand the implications of their proposals.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hour is late, so I shall be brief. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said on procedure and in substance.
On procedure, I regret that we are pushing the Bill through in this way. On any view, the Bill has important legal and constitutional implications. On any view, there are serious questions to be asked as to the text of the Bill; that has become apparent from the debate. I believe that the Bill, in a slightly different form, should have been proposed much earlier in the Session. In any event, it should have been considered in Committee in the ordinary way; perhaps by a Special Standing Committee. We should have had the chance to be informed by the representations from outside this place and a chance to consider the text of the Bill in an orderly way.
I agree very much with those who have expressed the view that, by pushing through this legislation quickly, we are likely to enact a Bill that is seriously defective, in that it would seriously diminish individual rights.
I wish to focus on two matters; the "Summary measures: detention" and the banning orders powers on complaint. The "Summary measures: detention", proposed by section 21A of the Bill are a serious infringement of human rights. It is worth pausing and asking ourselves what the measures do, and the answer is that they enable a constable to arrest a person in order to make inquiries.
I believe, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), that that is actually in breach of article 5 of the convention. Even if it were not, I cannot see the justification for giving an officer the power to arrest simply and solely in order to make inquiries. The arrest is not just for 24 hours; it can be for 48 hours. Once the inquiry has been made,


the officer can detain a person for a further 24 hours to ensure that the person turns up to the magistrates court. I have grave doubts as to whether magistrates courts would be able to sit within 24 hours.
The Bill may contain one other illegality, in that the powers under section 21C can be exercised only in relation to a British citizen. The Minister will be advised that article 14 of the convention prescribes any discrimination with regard to national status. I have no doubt that, after 2 October, article 14 will be invoked with regard to section 21 C of the Bill.
My last point concerns the question of the general power of the banning order on complaint. This has the substance of a criminal penalty. Let us be clear—a banning order seriously restricts a person's liberty, in the sense that it can be associated with the surrender of a passport and can prevent a person from doing what that person wants to do. The banning order is made by a magistrates court on application by a senior police officer, not because the person has committed an offence or because the person is intending to commit an offence, but, rather, because there is some evidence that the person has been associated with acts of disorder in the past. There may not have been a criminal conviction; it could have been many years ago; it may not be related to football; it may be trivial in kind.
However, if the person is associated with, or has caused or contributed to, acts of violence or disorder, the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the banning order may help to prevent disorder or violence in the future. It may not be necessary, but there may be reasonable grounds to suppose that the order may help to prevent disorder. All that will be done on the civil standard of proof, but this is a criminal penalty. It is being obtained on the civil standard of proof and in the absence of any crime having been committed.
It is late and I could wax passionately about the matter. However, I have spoken for five minutes and, at ten minutes past 12, that is enough. This is a bad Bill. Left to my own devices, I would vote against it. If we do not seek to make serious amendments in Committee and on Report, as I hope hon. Members will do, I will vote against the Bill. I hope that other members of my party, Liberal Democrats and those Labour Members who clearly have doubts will do likewise. We are doing something tonight of which I suspect that we will be ashamed.

Mr. Tony McWalter: It is probably too late at night for a long speech, so, like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I will limit myself to points that have not yet been made.
There is a great division in the House between those who believe that to deal with those who behave violently in association with football we should restrict ourselves to identifying their crimes and applying the penal code to them, and those who believe that disorderly conduct needs to be addressed. Speech after speech by Opposition Members—with the exception of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), whose speech I greatly enjoyed—suggested that any move towards targeting

disorderly conduct that stops short of criminal sanctions, as we effected with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is a reprehensible step down a slippery slope.
My specific worry about the Bill concerns proposed section 21A. Like most people, I am concerned about that provision, which is at the core of the Bill. I support the Government's general belief that simply identifying crimes is insufficient. I say that for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). There is a cultural dimension to the debate, in that large numbers of people behave in a way that is contemptuous of the forces of law and order and of people who seek to steward football matches, as well as others in authority. If we are to have order, there must be respect for authority.
Even if people are not committing crimes, if they are making it absolutely clear that they refuse to go along with reasonable instructions to behave themselves in the airport lounge, or wherever they are, and exhibit xenophobic or racist attitudes, which we have discussed a great deal this evening, visiting their presence on another state may not be a great idea.
We should not only tackle those people, as new section 21A says, on the grounds that they may have committed a crime or behaved in a disorderly, reprehensible or shameful way in the past, but try to identify whether their current behaviour is such that a reasonable person might judge that they are likely to be offensive to people abroad. That is the judgment that magistrates, police officers and others in a position of responsibility are being asked to make. There are clues in the way that people talk and in how they treat the custodians of the legal system which enable us to make such judgments.
I agree with the Home Secretary that banning orders, similar to those in the Crime and Disorder Act, are appropriate. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary to deal with the situation, but, in one important respect, the banning order is not like the orders under the Act.
Under the 1998 Act, when someone is liable to an order, he is informed of the possibility and his co-operation is sought, so that if he mends his ways the order will not be necessary. The order is the final stage of a series of actions designed to improve behaviour and to avoid the need for the order to be imposed. Under the Bill, there is no time or scope to seek the person's co-operation before he is brought before a magistrate.
The Bill should provide for the case where someone who has been behaving offensively is asked to behave properly, and does so. In new section 21A(2) there is little scope for the constable to make a judgment that a football fan will be amenable to the custodians of the law in the country to which he is travelling. The Bill should allow for that.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said at the beginning of the debate, the constable should not be required to analyse whether the person before him had committed some offence in the past. The constable should observe the person's actual behaviour in the airport lounge, and make a decision on that basis—not on the suspicion that he is the kind of person who may be a bit too boisterous to behave himself if he goes to Brussels.
I hope that the Bill can be amended to take account of the issues that have been raised by Members of all parties during the debate. When the Bill comes back to us, I hope that it will be an effective prophylactic against hooligan


behaviour and that it will overcome the civil liberty objections that have rightly been raised by many hon. Members.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Some of the earlier remarks by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) made me extremely worried about civil liberties and lent credence to my concern that the Bill is a dangerous step on the road towards a police state.
We have had about five hours' debate, during which almost every speaker has expressed grave reservations about aspects of the Bill. Hon. Members then qualified their reservations by saying that they were sure that they would all be resolved by the Government on Monday during the Committee stage, on Report, if that takes place, and on Third Reading. However, we will probably not have as much time on Monday as we have today for Second Reading. Hon. Members who think that the Government will get the Bill sorted out to their satisfaction on Monday are being somewhat naive.
The justification for the Bill was encapsulated by the Home Secretary when he said that the National Criminal Intelligence Service considers that the game in France on 2 September this year is a high-risk game. He did not go on to say whether NCIS had told him that if the Bill were passed into law, the game would no longer be a high-risk game. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will tell us what the advice of NCIS is on that matter.
I do not like the Bill because it endorses the concept of guilt by association. It gives powers to deprive innocent people of their freedom, merely on the basis of suspicion. If we were worried about the Bill before the Home Secretary spoke, we should be even more worried about it now, after his revelations about what happened to the people who were arrested on the continent during Euro 2000.
Of the 965 people arrested, five were convicted. The other 960 were not charged, yet we know from what the Home Secretary told us that there is a list of those people. In many cases—perhaps the larger proportion—there were no grounds for arrest. Those people were innocent, but they are now on a blacklist. The Home Secretary said that he will not publish it, but he should tear it up and destroy all records relating to those wrongful arrests on the continent, erasing them from the record.
However, we know that such lists will be kept and used in evidence against these people. They will be deprived of their passports and will struggle to explain to magistrates that the deportation orders made from the continent following the European championships were ill founded and that there were no grounds for deportation. It is incredibly worrying that people were arrested on the continent in the absence of proper grounds for arrest and without warrants being issued. I submit that that represents a clear breach of the European convention on human rights, if that means anything to the Belgians. Those people will find that that evidence can be further used against them to deprive them of the right to travel abroad and to use their passports like ordinary British citizens who are free to do so.
I am worried about the Bill. I start from the proposition that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that an innocent person should be convicted, and I am sorry that

so many Labour Members do not do the same. The House should take that proposition seriously once again. The Bill frightens me.

Mr. Clive Efford: I shall be brief because all the points that need to be made have been made in this good debate. I accept that something needs to be done, but I do not accept that anything needs to be done to tackle what many people have described as a problem that involves a minority of those who attend football matches. I am a Millwall supporter, for what that is worth. I have attended many games at Millwall and have seen the same culprits cause problems for the club. I have also seen those same culprits cause problems for other London teams at other grounds, but little intelligence-based action has been taken on that.
I am concerned about proposed new section 21A(2), which deals with the evidence base. An officer at a port may take a dislike to an individual who wants to attend a football match and decide that he should be detained for 24 hours and taken before a magistrate. I was a youth worker in south London, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in the 1970s. I remember how the sus laws were abused and that a disproportionate number of young black youths were picked up. I also spent nearly 12 years in an industry in which the police have enormous powers, which are regularly abused, over those who work in it. Police officers are conscious of their power, and I know of several instances of their seeking out London taxi drivers to abuse it.
My point is that checks and balances must be in place, as a law-abiding individual could be prevented from travelling abroad on the say-so of a police officer, which is a serious matter. There should be recourse to a magistrate—perhaps an arrangement similar to that for obtaining a search warrant—and the police should have to show reasonable grounds for detaining a person and preventing him from travelling. That person should have to present himself to a magistrate the next day and the magistrate could decide whether there was a case to answer. Such a check and balance would allow a person to continue his journey if he could prove that he was not a threat.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Efford: No; I must be brief.
My point is that we could deal with this issue in other ways. Also, it would be easy for people to get around the legislation by going to Glasgow or Belfast. More thought should be given to the timing of matches. If people present themselves at police stations or magistrates courts at a certain time, they cannot be at the match. They will not be able to use their passports, which will prevent the get-out of travelling to Glasgow or elsewhere.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I share the concern about the Bill that has been expressed by Members on both sides of the House. I am worried about new section 21 generally, but paragraphs (2) and (3) in particular show how far we have gone. We no longer have


answers, so we strike out. We strike out against certain basic principles with which we grew up, such as the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty.
The Bill does not even require a proof that we would understand in a court. It enables magistrates to take into account an offence that may take place in a jurisdiction of which we know almost nothing—a jurisdiction that may meet none of the standards of freedom, justice or intent that we consider important in dealing with crime.
Would we consider proper justice necessary in Zaire, or in parts of Turkey? I know that it is invidious to mention other nations, and I have no real understanding of their criminal and justice procedures; but, like many other Members, I have travelled, and know that corruption is not absent in all countries. It is possible for people in those countries to say to British subjects, "I will identify you as a hooligan unless you give me a bribe." That may be a trivial argument in itself, but it presents various questions.
I should like to know from the Home Secretary how many people, on any given day in the early summer, pass through British ports. I think of London; I think of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; I think of the south-coast ports; I think of the channel; I think of Newcastle; I think of my local airport, Birmingham, and of Manchester. Tens of thousands of people probably pass through, and we are proposing that a police constable should stand there, trying to exercise his power if it appears to him that someone's behaviour demands that.
In life, we sometimes get things wrong. There is nothing more grievous than being wrongly identified by authority. Under this objectionable proposed new section 21, I may be detained for as long as it takes a police constable to satisfy himself that an order may be issued. That is wrong. I have been placed in an intolerable position. As a free citizen with no convictions, innocent of intent, I have been detained while trying to leave the country.
I do not know whether it is possible to sift through tens of thousands of people passing through a port reasonably, quickly and effectively. However, I can tell the Government that, almost within weeks of the Bill's implementation, some young man taking an elderly couple whom he is meeting in Calais to Lourdes in search of a miracle cure will be detained for 24 hours, and someone will die. Then the very newspapers that have driven the Home Secretary to this action will comment on the brutality of the police in denying the wishes of that poor, sainted, benighted youth.
Sometimes, when examining the details of legislation, we question it and discover its defects. I have been in the House for a long time. I remember hearing a Conservative Home Secretary say—this was mentioned in the House of Lords—that all stages of a Bill must go through in one day because dangerous dogs were going to eat us. Hon. Members on both sides of the House said, "Hallelujah", although a few voted against it. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) nods—but the legislation went through. Members of my party sit in courts and have had to make decisions on the execution of dogs and settle arguments about species and sub-species. One of them said that although he had sentenced two dogs to death, he did not think that the sentence was ever carried out.
Errors always creep in, because no one is perfect. I am concerned that the Bill places a burden on the police and will exacerbate their relationship with a generation of young people, as well as older people.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made the perfectly good point that, according to the Home Secretary's own figures, 30 per cent. of young men—it is always men—have had a conviction by the age of 30. I think that the same applies to those under 40. Any trawl through a group of people passing through one of our many ports is likely to secure someone who has had a conviction. The conviction may be spent, he may be a good person, and the circumstances of many years ago may not be known. My right hon. and learned Friend asked a reasonable question. Are spent convictions taken into account? Registers are kept of people who do not have a conviction but have given the police cause for concern.
We have lived through the troubles in Ulster, and know of the grievous injuries that have been inflicted on innocent people. In hitting out or trying to prevent certain behaviour, we put in the hands of authority powers that cause contention between the citizen and the authorities of the state. That is an intolerable burden to place on the police.
If, in the court's judgment, a person were guilty of committing an offence, and part of the punishment was the withdrawal of a passport, I would have no difficulty with that. I can understand if a crime has been committed, a sentence passed and the nature of the sentence includes the confiscation of a passport, but that is not what the Bill is about. It relies merely on the suspicion of a constable who does not even have to have reasonable grounds. Does the House of Commons really want to pass such a Bill into law? I think not.

Mr. Eric Forth: I disagree with the Bill totally, entirely and in every aspect. I associate myself with the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I do not agree with the way in which the Bill has been treated and the spurious urgency with which it has been brought to the House.
What has the House of Commons come to when, apparently in all seriousness, we are asked to make fundamental changes to our law because of a football match of all things? That must be the ultimate in absurdity, but that is what we are being asked to put our names to. We risk totally inadequate scrutiny. That would be bad enough at the best of times—we have seen many examples of it recently—but inadequate scrutiny of this Bill covering these subjects and threatening these liberties is triply intolerable. It must not be allowed, and the House must resist it.
This is a bad Bill for a number of reasons. It challenges or undermines the presumption of innocence, which I always thought was a fundamental of our judicial process. It has retrospective elements, which I do not think have been mentioned up to now. New section 14B(2) has an unacceptable element of retrospection. It is loose, sloppy and dangerous. Retrospection has increasingly crept into our law, and that should be resisted on every occasion.
The Bill threatens the liberties of the many to deal with the few, which is the reverse of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made. He put it in a different context, but I see it very much in that way. Yes, there may well be a problem with a small number of people and we should find proper ways to deal with them within our domestic law, but no, we should not threaten the liberties of many people, as so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have described—for example the tens of thousands that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned—to catch the few who act in ways of which we all disapprove.
Finally, I do not accept that we should take responsibility in this country for misdemeanours committed in other jurisdictions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden argued that so eloquently. It is beyond me why we should take it on ourselves to treat within our judicial system misdemeanours committed in other countries. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) want to intervene?

Mr. Banks: What about sex tourism?

Mr. Forth: I make no distinction. I am stating what to me is a general principle: if our citizens travel abroad, the countries to which they go and in which they commit alleged misdemeanours should deal with their crimes. I do not accept the principle that we are importing into our judicial system that we deal with alleged crimes committed abroad. I say that for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that we can never have the quality of evidence that we would expect as a standard in our judicial system.
At every level, the Bill is wrong, defective, undesirable and unacceptable—in its content, in the principles that it would apply, in the way in which it is being treated and the method in which it has been brought to the House. Therefore, I hope that we have an opportunity to vote against it, so that those of us who have those feelings can express them properly in the Lobby. That is my hope and intention.

Mr. Edward Leigh: If the authorities wish to deny people their passport, they should go to a magistrates court to do so. If they are allowed to wait for 24 hours, it would give the police the opportunity to arrest or stop people on the flimsiest of evidence, knowing that they will have 24 hours to collect evidence. If there were an immediate hearing, the police would know that when they stopped the person, at the port or wherever, they would immediately have to justify their actions to a court.
An immediate court hearing would not absolve the Bill of all guilt, but it would improve matters no end. However, that provision is not yet in the Bill, so I cannot support it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: This has been a fairly lengthy debate, in which a number of important subjects have been covered. I shall briefly discuss the many thoughtful contributions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that

when the Minister replies for the Government, he will also do hon. Members the courtesy of dealing with these serious issues seriously. I see that the Minister is nodding.
The Home Secretary began by talking about those who show a demonstrable propensity to commit acts of violence. The important words in that phrase are "demonstrable propensity". So many hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked of the need for clear evidence that can be put before a court—such a provision is lacking in the Bill.
The first intervention on the Home Secretary was from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—a very senior Labour Back Bencher—expressing her concerns. From the first intervention by a Labour Member to the last speech—a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter)—concerns were being expressed. A number of hon. Members were saying that they were not happy with the Bill in its present form, yet the Home Secretary was suggesting, in his rah-rah fanfare—trying to whip up feeling on the Labour Benches—that there was something inappropriate in the official Opposition wanting to subject the Government's proposals to detailed scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear not only today but an earlier stage that it was essential for the Opposition and all parts of the House to give the Bill detailed scrutiny. The Home Secretary, whom I am delighted to see returning to the Chamber, paid tribute to the work of the Library in its research paper and suggested that all hon. Members should read it. What does that research paper do? It draws attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who, on 4 July at columns 172–73, emphasising the need for the Bill to receive due scrutiny as it would contain some sensitive and significant measures with serious implications for civil liberties. That was before we saw the draft Bill, the revised draft Bill or the final Bill, so there is nothing inconsistent in our saying—we have done so throughout—that we felt that it should receive proper scrutiny.
We greatly welcome the Home Secretary's repetition of his statement that he remains open to suggestions for further amendments, including from Her Majesty's Opposition. In answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), he said that he believed that the Bill as it stands is not in breach of the European convention on human rights, but, as many Members, including in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), have pointed out, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right and the Home Secretary is wrong. Article 5.1(b) of the European convention is clearly breached by the Bill as it stands in relation to the power to detain on the suspicion of a constable, so that inquiries can be made.
In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the Home Secretary then had a distinct change of tone. That may have been brought about by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talking about people being taken before the courts in Belgium before they were flown home, but the hon. Gentleman, who takes a big interest in sporting matters and for whom I have great respect,


was unfortunately mistaken. When he said that, he forgot that no one was actually taken before a court in Belgium before they were flown home.

Mr. Miller: May I be absolutely clear? The point that I made was in respect of those people whom we saw on television. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the people whom we saw slinging chairs around in Charleroi should be in that country with our support?

Mr. Hawkins: I do not. Nor does anyone who has spoken in the debate, but I noticed, as I have said, a distinct change of tone when the Home Secretary said in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention that the Government were thinking hard about the matter—new section 14C(3)(b)—because there is a need for those people to he brought before a court before they are subject to the kind of powers that the Government are putting forward.
We feel that one of the Bill's grave defects as it stands is that it talks about people being detained on mere suspicion. Not a single leader writer in any national paper that has commented on the Home Secretary's proposals as they stand has supported them. They have all drawn attention to that problem.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), in his apologia for the failure of this country's bid to host the 2006 World cup, said that all the blame was to do with the hooliganism in Charleroi and in Brussels. He said that he was not going to turn into Sir Tufton Bufton, but he rightly drew attention to the activities of people such as the Chelsea Headhunters and talked about how unpleasant and threatening those people are. He has had personal experience of such violence at football matches. So have I and so have many Members, but he knows that it has been recorded that many of those extreme violent fans—one could not say that they were fans; they use a football match as an excuse for violence—are capable of dressing up in a suit to fool the police, and of going to Scotland, Belfast or Dublin to fly out. There are gaps in the legislation as it stands, so I think that the hon. Gentleman was supporting the concerns of Members on the Conservatives Benches and in many parts of the House that there is a need for the Bill to be improved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has the great experience of being a former Cabinet Minister and a former shadow Home Secretary, talked about the civil liberties of shop keepers and other law-abiding citizens. He pointed out that the law was not working. He said that he was not abandoning the Home Secretary's ship, but that we needed to have a sign that the ship was being steered in the right direction. We undoubtedly do need that. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said—I quote him precisely—"We need to see the evidence of hooligans committing offences," in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also quoted Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which is an unusual work to be quoted in a debate on football hooligans. As he quite rightly said, however, it is difficult to frame laws to get

people to desist from acting in a particular way. Precisely so; it is difficult, which is why the Bill needs scrutiny and to be improved.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a thoughtful speech, as he so often does. He raised the issue of whether it really is appropriate to legislate only for football. He suggested that the Government might seek to legislate for ice hockey in one year, but for rugby league in another. Like me and all other hon. Members who take a big interest in sporting matters, the hon. Gentleman is aware that, not long ago, in the previous rugby league season—most unusually, because rugby league has not been much associated with violence—there was quite serious violence at a rugby league match. We should therefore bear in mind his comments.
I do not have much time to speak. However, I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my right. hon. and hon. Friends were quite right to say that, although parts of the Bill are absolutely unexceptionable and we could all happily agree on them, other parts of the Bill cause major problems.
The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) suggested that football is a different case from all other sports. Although she welcomed the Bill, she expressed very serious concerns.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) set out his five tests for the bad law that is passed when there were demands that "something must be done". The Home Secretary's response seems to be that this is such a case, and that, therefore, the Government must do something. That is simply not good enough.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) talked about going to Charleroi with his family. He also talked about the oldest person who is subject to a banning order, a 61-year-old who is almost 62. He also talked about football supporters' record of 2.5 million successful and peaceful visits to football matches being spoiled by a tiny minority of disorderly and violent fans.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, quite rightly deplored the rush with which the Bill has been introduced and the lack of concern being shown for serious human rights issues.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) suggested that he somehow had the right, despite being elected to the House only at the previous general election, to lecture my right. hon. Friends who have been in the House for very many years on what parliamentary Second Reading scrutiny is supposed to be about. I suggest that, when he re-reads that part of his speech, he may wish to reconsider it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), from his great expertise in introducing legislation, pointed out that more mature consideration could have been given to including in previous legislation the type of measures that we are debating.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) talked about the need to get the law right, because otherwise it is brought into disrepute.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the


hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) all drew attention to many human rights and civil liberties problems.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and for Eltham (Mr. Efford) all drew attention to other problems with the Bill.
We hope that the Bill will be brought into a proper form. It is called the Football (Disorder) Bill, but it is the Bill itself that is disorderly. Parts of it are very good. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has said that he will listen to ideas to improve it. We hope very much that he will stick to that.
In the House's consideration of an earlier piece of legislation, a member of the then shadow Cabinet talked about the way in which an Opposition can respond to a football Bill. He said:
unreservedly offer the support of the…party for any Bill which is genuinely and effectively concerned with football safety and the enhancement of a great national game. These are not and should not be matters of party political dispute. But this Bill—
the Bill that he was talking about—
does not meet those requirements. As drafted it can never do so. That is why we are opposing it tonight.—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 862.]
Who was that right hon. Gentleman? It was the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), speaking about the Football Spectators Act 1989. We are not opposing this Bill. That is the contrast and the answer to so many of the Home Secretary's attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by commending all 20 Back-Bench speeches, and the Front-Bench speeches in an excellent and illuminating debate in which many points of view were put clearly and coherently. It is a tribute to the House.
I want to focus on the common ground that has been expressed during the debate. First, there is strong common ground that Parliament needs to address the problem of international football hooliganism. With the possible exceptions of the right hon. Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who expressed some doubts about that principle, there was a general acceptance that it was a matter for the country and the House to address.
We debated many of the profound issues during the Opposition day debate on 20 June. I do not intend to return to those points save to say that there was consensus that we are dealing with an urgent national issue and we need more research and understanding in order to address it fully.
Secondly, there was common ground that we need stronger legislative powers to deal with these matters in a variety of ways. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that there had been eight previous pieces of legislation on the matter, from the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 to the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, in which Governments of both parties sought to strengthen the law to deal with the problem in the most effective way.
Let me respond to those who asked, "Does it work?". The answer is that it has worked in some respects. We cannot claim that the Bill will solve all the ills that have been described in the debate, but it will make a contribution towards doing so and, on that basis, we should support it. All parties have committed themselves to the need for stronger legislative powers, and previous legislation has reflected that.
The third area of common ground is that we need stronger international co-operation and intelligence work involving police forces in different countries and that we need to find better ways of working together. That is a positive aim.
It is also fair to say—and the point could be made in a partisan way—that there is general agreement that better legislation is produced when there is consensus and when there is sufficient time to consider the issues fully as a proper debate can result in more effective provisions. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made that point powerfully, as did some of my hon. Friends. I acknowledge what they said.
There was also a clear consensus that people are ready to work together to address the issues in an effective way. In her opening speech, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) attempted to find consensus and common ground, and I commend her for that.
There has also been common ground on the substance of the Bill. Almost all hon. Members who spoke agreed that the first two provisions of the Bill—a new banning order combining aspects of domestic and international football banning orders and a requirement that all banning orders to include a condition on the surrender of passports unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so—would improve the legislation.
On the third main point of the Bill, enabling magistrates courts to impose banning orders on suspected football hooligans, again there was common ground that legislation might be appropriate although a number of specific points were made. They will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought from what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that they were both willing to discuss how to improve the legislation in relation to specific points that were made. I accept that it may not be possible to do that, but I take it from the sincerity of the spokesmen of both main Opposition parties that we could take a direct approach to the issue.

Mr. David Davis: Does the Minister believe that it will be possible, in the remaining stages of the Bill, to place the banning order in a criminal process based on evidence?

Mr. Clarke: I doubt whether that will be possible completely, but it will be possible to deal with the problem in other ways. I may be wrong, but I thought that Front-Bench Members of the Opposition parties would, like Labour Members, commit themselves to discussing the best way to achieve that. The right hon. Gentleman makes a real point, but I think that we can make progress on the matter.
There was much common ground between hon. Members in the debate. However, the Bill's fourth proposal—that there be summary powers enabling a


constable to issue a notice preventing British citizens from leaving the country and requiring them to surrender their passports—aroused dispute. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke of the European convention on human rights, as did other hon. Members.
After due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has placed his certificate on the Bill to assert that the Bill complies with the ECHR. The key issue, which emerged during what was a full and fair debate, comes down to a difference of opinion. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke about proportionality, and said that the removal of a person's right to attend the venue of a match—although he or she may still watch the game on television—amounts to a low-level penalty and deserves consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made the same point very clearly.
The other side of the argument was expressed mainly by Conservative Members, but a couple of Labour Members shared their view. It is that the potential threat to liberty implied by the provision was so serious and profound that it could not be justified, even though the penalty was relatively small in the greater scale of things.
That debate is a legitimate and important one for the House. All hon. Members will form an opinion on the balance of judgments about that question, and our constituents will do the same. They will look at the proportionality, or otherwise, of the proposal, and they will come to a view. They will see how the House votes, and they will reach a verdict accordingly.
That is right, and fair enough. However, it is important to look at the position of the political parties. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey appeared to say that the Liberal Democrats could not support any proposal to introduce such summary powers in any circumstances. He judged proportionality to be so important that no such proposal could be accepted. He made it clear that there was no scope for discussion, as he would urge his colleagues in the House of Lords to vote against the Bill on those grounds.
The Government come down clearly on the other side of the argument. We believe that it is important to be able to drive out international soccer hooliganism, and we are prepared to take the powers to achieve that, even though they involve a violation of rights in the way that has been described in various ways. Some Labour Members expressed doubt about that, and they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. Lilley: The Minister just admitted that the Bill involves a violation of rights, but he has not dealt with the argument, advanced by me and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent. The Government have been provoked into introducing the Bill by a television programme showing a minority of British football fans behaving in a deplorable fashion overseas. However, the BBC is to screen a programme showing that a large

minority of people go to Ibiza to take illegal drugs, under the influence of which they behave in a disgraceful fashion. What is to stop—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The intervention is far too long.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman makes the familiar argument about setting a dangerous precedent. It is a perfectly legitimate argument. I do not agree with it. Almost any action creates a precedent. I do not think that in principle we can say that we do not do it because it is a precedent. One looks at the merits of the case, on this and other issues. The right hon. Gentleman made his position very clear.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what he has just said? If we are to put into legislation, in this Bill, the power of a police officer on his or her own suspicion to remove somebody's right to travel, what is to stop any other legislation giving exactly the same powers to the police, rather than the courts, to act on?

Mr. Clarke: The short answer is "the Parliament"; Parliament decides how it will deal with each piece of legislation as it comes along. Proportionality is an important concept, which needs to be given more attention. The point about it is that one must look at the penalties in relation to the offences committed.
My final point is that I believe that the Conservative party came to the view that it would abstain because there was an irreconcilable difference in approach, which we have seen in this debate. I pay genuine tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I believe that she is concerned to try to reach agreement to deal with the issue in the way that we are discussing. She addressed the fourth principle, and showed that she is prepared to discuss it. I thought, though I may have misunderstood him, that her right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was saying that issues in this area should be discussed as well, and he was certainly prepared to contemplate—I go no further—legislation that included the fourth principle, provided he could be satisfied on the points that were made. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford, to whom I pay tribute for his private Member's Bill, was also very clear and direct in this regard.
On the other hand, many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches made it clear that they were with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Essentially, there were no circumstances in which they would be prepared even to discuss the section 4 issue. I believe that that is the problem that the right hon. Lady has been dealing with. She has been overruled by her right hon. Friend the leader of her party, who has gone back on the commitments made, and that party is all over the shop.
Now the electorate will come to its judgment. It will judge whether the Government were right to proceed despite the civil liberties issues. It will judge whether the Liberals are right to oppose the provisions because of those issues, despite the problem that our power to deal with international soccer hooliganism would be weakened. And it will judge the Conservatives in exactly the same way. That is as it should be.
My advice to the right hon. Lady—I assure her that it is friendly advice—is that she had better get a system sorted out that can unite her party and present her position to the public, because, with all respect to her, that was not achieved tonight. The fact is that the abstention is a reflection of the deep division within the Conservatives. It is also a reflection of the fact that there is dissension, even to the level of the leadership of her party, about how to proceed. My advice is to sort it out.
I believe, and the Government believe, that our responsibility is to do everything we can, following the eight measures put forward in the past, to eradicate soccer hooliganism. It damages our country; it destroys and blackens our reputation; and we must do whatever we can to eradicate it. That is the spirit in which the Bill is put forward and the spirit in which I hope the House will give it a Second Reading now.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 6.

Division No. 268]
[1.3 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cranston, Ross


Ainger, Nick
Crausby, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dobbin, Jim


Austin, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Banks, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Follett, Barbara


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grogan, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hain, Peter


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)





Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Joan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lock, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCabe, Steve
Snape, Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McNulty, Tony
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John



Mallaber, Judy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Timms, Stephen


Martlew, Eric
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Todd, Mark


Merron, Gillian
Trickett, Jon


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Miller, Andrew
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Moffatt, Laura
Tynan, Bill


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Moran, Ms Margaret
Vis, Dr Rudi


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Morley, Elliot
Watts, David


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
White, Brian



Wicks, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Winnick, David


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Woodward, Shaun


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Woolas, Phil


O'Hara, Eddie
Worthington, Tony


Olner, Bill



Organ, Mrs Diana
Tellers for the Ayes:


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Mr. Don Touhig and


Palmer, Dr Nick
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Shepherd, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy



Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Eric Forth and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Question agreed to.

Committee on Monday 17 July.

FOOTBALL (DISORDER) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football (Disorder) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to

DATA PROTECTION

Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Commissioner shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Farnham and Haslemere Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I had intended to say how grateful I was to Madam Speaker for choosing me for an Adjournment debate that should have taken place at 7 pm on Thursday. It is now 1.15 am. Although I am still grateful to Madam Speaker—I shall miss her greatly when she steps down—you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that 1.15 am is rather different from 7 o'clock in the evening.
I wish to speak on a subject of the most profound and serious concern to my constituency. In my 16 years in the House, I cannot recall an occasion on which I have had more letters containing greater depth, detail, responsible argument and increasing anger. They are about the complex consultation exercise that the health authority has introduced, most of which will take place over the summer recess. This is almost my last opportunity to raise the issue in the House before then.
I wish to discuss the future of community nursing, mental health services and the provision of care in West Surrey as well as in north and mid-Hampshire. Much of the complex detail has not been thought through or carefully argued, but the proposal is that there should be no community beds in the hospitals in Farnham, a town serving more than 40,000 people, and Haslemere, the town with the highest elderly population in Surrey whose hospital also serves people from Sussex and Hampshire. It is suggested that there should be a temporary reprieve for Milford hospital, an isolated hospital far from a local community and with no available transport services.
The proposals have been made following the Government's election and less than two years after the health authority came forward with plans, after careful and detailed deliberation and debate, that at Farnham there certainly would be a 42-bed community hospital, a stroke rehabilitation unit and a day hospital. At that time, the health authority chairman and the other members of the team gave their word that those plans would settle the future of Farnham hospital. I have just looked at the trust's publication for the plans for the health service in that area for 1999–2000. It, too, reasserts the commitment to Farnham hospital and its future.
I issued a leaflet shortly before Christmas to confirm with the trust that the plans for the hospital would still proceed, and I was given the affirmation that they would. I make my points with strong feeling, because I worked extremely hard—for well over 100 hours—with the people across the area to lower their expectations. People need to understand that change is necessary and that the patterns of the past cannot continue in the future. I had the absolute assurance that the plans would go ahead and, after much pressure and persuasion, people were prepared to accept the project for a 42-bed hospital which is now apparently to be abandoned.
Such a level of betrayal has profoundly affronted people across the Waverley area and West Surrey. That is particularly so because the community hospitals in the north of the area—in Weybridge, Woking and elsewhere—are to be saved. Worse than that, in the Hampshire health authority across the border, the Fleet hospital will continue to have community beds.
I wish to quote Dr. Raw, one of the most distinguished and long-standing general practitioners in Farnham. He is not given to militant language, but he said that
the Farnham doctors are horrified at the failure of the authorities to build a proper community hospital for a town of 38,000 people with a larger catchment area and a significant elderly population, when other new facilities are springing up all over the country. Such a building requires a range of hospital facilities, including day care and beds for both the elderly and General Practitioner use.
Mary Neville of West street, Farnham, said
It is so ridiculous to think that care in the home will take the place of rehabilitation beds in the hospital when we all know that Social Services are totally understaffed and underfunded. The fact that somehow we are all going to be packed into Frimley or the Royal Surrey, when necessary, when they are already filled to bursting is totally unrealistic. They did at least confess that they had reneged on their agreement on The Right Balance, but to tell us that it is a privilege to have a Community hospital in a town of this size, rather than a right, took some swallowing. Some years ago we had five hospitals and now we will have one "bedless care centre", illustrating the pathetic state of the NHS and the insensitivity of the Health Authorities to the needs of an ageing and growing population.
In the Haslemere area, Dr. Taylor—an extremely distinguished senior partner—explains:
Haslemere will lose the opportunity to be treated in a high quality community hospital environment greatly respected and originally paid for by the local community. This type of care cannot be found in a nursing home, which lacks specialist nursing and support of pathology, x-ray and in-house services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and dietetics.
I have been overwhelmed by letters, and I can only apologise to my constituents that it is not possible for me to do justice to the great number who have spoken to me.
There have been a series of meetings in Farnham and Haslemere. Only with reluctance did the health authority chairman attend. However, he came and, I hope, was taken aback by what he heard. The letters that I have received show that people do not believe that the health authority was responsive, listening or behaving in the way we are now told it should in terms of partnership and trying to regain public confidence in the health service.
Mrs. Green of Brambletonn avenue, Farnham, said:
The attitude of the platform, despite declaring that they were there to listen, indicated that the audience was wasting its time because the Health Authority knew best and the plan to close the beds was the only way forward.
The local feeling has been inflamed by successive comments from the Government, suggesting that the direction of travel is one that is sympathetic to the concerns of local people. The Secretary of State, in his new health network speech of 6 June, referred to the national plan: an unfortunately chosen name, following George Brown's national plan. The right hon. Gentleman said that the audit will confirm that older people are currently poorly served by the lack of intermediate care beds, with up to a fifth of hospital beds occupied by patients who could be getting better care elsewhere. That is the case in Farnham and Haslemere, and local people are up in arms.
Recently, an Audit Commission report confirmed the need for the facilities that are currently available at Farnham and Haslemere. Of course intermediate care is a sensible idea, and we should care for people in the community wherever possible. But, as with mental health services, there is a need for some beds and some community beds. The idea that nursing homes can pick

up the strain, with their fragmented provision and without the integrated care pathway and the coherent care given by nurses in the community hospital who have a close working relationship with GPs, is ridiculous. It would lead to enormous pressure on GPs.
There is already tremendous difficulty in finding nursing home places and this has been exacerbated by deliberate policies from the Government. In my area, under this Government, we have seen a severe deterioration in services. I am afraid that the Government are not given to openness in information, but I pay a warm tribute to the Library. Time and again, I ask either the health authority or Ministers for information that they are simply not prepared to give. Somehow, miraculously, the Library seems able to find it.
Let us discuss equity. One person in eight has been waiting for in-patient treatment in West Surrey. In the Prime Minister's area of Durham, the figure is one in a hundred. I do not think that that represents equity and neither do my constituents. I have always regarded the number of people waiting for more than a year as the absolute test for an adequate health service. I say that partly because, when I was a Health Minister, the number waiting for one year went from 200,000 to 4,000. I wish that I had eliminated the waiting list altogether. Since the election, the percentage waiting more than a year has doubled in West Surrey. The number of finished consultant episodes went up by 0.8 per cent. in my area and by 5 per cent. in Durham. The number of district nurses and health visitors per thousand of population rose in Durham and fell in West Surrey.
Behind those figures lies the fact that the Government have taken steps further to distort the funding formula, so the gap between West Surrey and Durham is now £115 a head. The Government have top-sliced more and allowed less to come out in the distribution so that they can fund projects such as the £12 million census on the NHS, which was met with derision by health staff and members of the public. That sum would have covered the £7 million that my health authority has been told that it needs to find.
Dr. Taylor commented that the £583 per capita payment for people in West Surrey is due to fall further to £570. There are 632,000 people in West Surrey, so if the payment falls by that £13 a head, the amount raised will be £8.2 million, which would also cover the £7 million needed by the health authority. However one looks at the figures, there is a postcode lottery for health care funding.
The Minister will say that there are many prosperous people in my constituency, and that is true, but there are many impoverished people, and they live in a high cost area. I fail to understand why somebody living on social security in an area such as mine should have a much worse service than somebody living on income support in the Prime Minister's constituency. Mrs. Daphne White, of Long Garden place in Farnham, put it well when she said that
the people of Farnham are devastated by this news, but we realise that the Government are not concerned about the people living and paying astronomical taxes in this country. The last thing they are concerned about is their welfare.
I am afraid that local people feel very bitter indeed.
After I had spoken to the Secretary of State and many other Ministers, and said that in three years there had been no ministerial visit to West Surrey and that I did not believe that that indicated proper stewardship of the


health service, the Under-Secretary finally arrived. Her visit coincided with the opening of a side ward at the accident and emergency unit. I thought that she would like to know what the situation was in June at the A and E unit at the Royal Surrey County hospital.
Mr. Groves wrote to me to say that on 28 and 29 June he spent 34 hours in the A and E unit: 10 hours on a hard stretcher and 24 hours on a bed. While he was there, he was told that at one particular time some 20 patients were on stretchers outside the A and E ward. There was no flu epidemic and it was not winter.
We have an excellent general practitioner in Haslemere, Dr. Ridsdill Smith, who says that the casualty department at the Royal Surrey County hospital is under such pressure that patients are routinely left on trolleys overnight or, more recently, on allocated chairs. Besides the increased risk of bedsores and the danger of leaving cardiac patients in casualty, there is the sheer depravity of 50 ill people sharing one loo and shower. The hospital is undergoing a bed crisis in midsummer. There is no capacity to decrease chair and trolley numbers, let alone community beds.
There has been a rearguard action to try to pretend that the Royal Surrey has problems of its own. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has spoken eloquently about the hospital's excellence, strength and efficiency. It is under huge pressure to control its financial difficulties, which are caused by a formula that gives the region, which consists of a dispersed rural area as well as town centres, so savage steps have been taken.
The number of beds has declined by 12 per cent., from 350 to 307 since the Government have been in power. There was a slight reduction before they came to office. In addition, the number of beds to which patients can be discharged has been further reduced by 25, so the overall number of beds available in the Royal Surrey area has gone from 472 to 404—that is, 68 fewer beds, or a 14 per cent. reduction. That is why it is intolerable for people to be told that they may lose the community beds that are available for their use.
Let me make some points clear. I am not opposed to intermediate care, but it cannot cope with the unmet demand that we now face, let alone the extra demand from an ageing population. Intermediate care on the scale proposed is totally untried and untested.
I am not opposed to the health staff. Indeed, I have the highest praise and admiration for the nurses, doctors and other health staff. It is their distress, which has been communicated to me with great intensity over the past two years, that led me to see the Secretary of State privately before Christmas and to raise the matter repeatedly in the House. I remain deeply unhappy that the Government seem so extraordinarily insensitive to these matters.
The Godwin unit at Haslemere is a rehabilitation unit for young disabled people. I opened it myself. It was a rehabilitation project near the town, offering the quality of care and attention that was considered the most suitable. People there are being told that they might have an interim move to Milford, before moving on to an acute hospital.
Why are people so angry? They are angry because services have deteriorated to an unacceptable level while the Government have distorted the funding formula.

They are angry because the Government's rhetoric implies that there has never been money like it in the NHS and the problems are over. They are angry because, two years ago, they were given assurances by the health authority that, yes, there would be difficulties in service provision, but the towns of Farnham and Haslemere would have their community beds. People are angry because they have no confidence that the health authority will act honourably, listen to their concerns and provide the local community with a service of which they can be proud.
This may be my last opportunity before the end of the consultation period to raise the matter in the House. I very much hope that the Minister will listen carefully and will be able to give people some encouragement. We are told that for the next three years, there will be an additional 6 per cent. above inflation for the NHS. The Hampshire health authority has taken those figures into account in its proposals. For no reason known to anybody, the Surrey health authority has chosen to disregard those proposals.
Since the previous plan, has the need for care changed? No. Has the financial position changed? No—except that we are told that there is more money coming through. It would be absolutely wrong to commit a long-term act of vandalism in the health infrastructure in West Surrey for reasons of short-term economic constraint.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on securing tonight's debate about the future of Farnham and Haslemere hospitals. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning that the Prime Minister's constituency is Sedgefield.
My ministerial colleagues and I are fully aware of the concerns about health services in West Surrey. Indeed, we have debated them in the House on many occasions. The historical context is clear, but it is obviously not one that the right hon. Lady seems ready to accept. I shall deal with that a little later.
I admit to being surprised to read the title of tonight's debate on the Order Paper. As the right hon. Lady knows, and as she mentioned in some detail, current proposals on the future of Farnham and Haslemere hospitals are subject to full, public, statutory consultation. That is set out in West Surrey health authority's "Sustainable NHS Strategy" consultation document. Consultation commenced in May of this year, and will not close until September. The usual consultation period is three months; in the case of West Surrey, it will be almost four months.
The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that if, following consultation, the local community health council objects to the health authority's final proposals, the matters will be referred to Ministers. Until then, we must remain impartial and not be seen to be influencing any decision. We must not, and I will not, prejudge the outcome of any local consultation.
At times, I find it tiring that some Members of the House constantly run down local services and refuse to accept any form of change, but it is encouraging that others take the time to acknowledge progress. The right hon. Lady said that change is necessary. However, it is interesting that there were no substantial or contentious changes in West Surrey between 1989 and 1995. On the


consultation, it is important to put it on record that we want local people to have an input on shaping services in the area.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Stuart: May I please continue?
That is why I established an independent advisory panel made up of a cross-section of local people that will help to advise the health authority on the future strategic direction of NHS services in the area.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Stuart: Just for once, I would like the case on West Surrey to be listened to. It would be helpful if we both listened.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Stuart: This is the one and only time that I shall give way.

Mrs. Bottomley: The Minister should be better prepared. There have been major changes at Farnham and Haslemere and maternity services and surgery were lost at both hospitals. On both occasions, I tried to lead the local community to accept those substantial changes and there have been many other alterations, including similar ones at Milford. The assurance was given that community beds would be retained. The Minister's remarks are not accurate.

Ms Stuart: I will not revisit old ground. I want to put on record the coherent, rational case and I should be grateful if, just for once, it was listened to.
As I have said many times, we inherited a health service that spent more locally than it was allocated. Even our generous funding increases—West Surrey health authority received £401 million for this year, which is a cash increase of some £30.7 million—were not enough to enable the health authority to meet its statutory duty to balance its books on a recurring basis. I put it on record that the funding per weighted head in West Surrey is £706. The national average is £688. For County Durham, the figure is £674. Although base funding per head in West Surrey is £633, weighted funding is above the national average. That must be accepted. This is not a matter of debate, but a matter of fact.
The health authority has stated that the aims of phase 2 are to achieve stability and to ensure that services in the area build on best practice and are fit for the 21st century. The services are about providing more care closer to people's homes, in either expanded health centres or local care centres. The intention is that the new primary care trusts will provide or co-ordinate all primary, community and a range of other services for local people. Local people will have access to modern, up-to-date facilities and be treated with the latest technology. The health authority plans a network of care to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital and to ensure that patients are discharged as soon as their treatment is completed.
Positive progress has been made in West Surrey, despite the problems of neglect that we inherited. We cannot ignore the fact that the NHS had too few doctors

and too few nurses. Three quarters of accident and emergency departments needed modernisation. The NHS was crying out for the biggest building programme in its history, but was stuck with a party content to spend funds on consultancy fees rather than construction fees. NHS debts, which were being built up year on year, amounted to £450 million. The right hon. Lady's own health authority, West Surrey, managed to build up a deficit of £18 million. Average real-terms growth over the full 18 years of Conservative government amounted to just 3 per cent.
After 18 years of neglect, we have started to put that right with the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. There are 5,000 more nurse training places and more than 10,000 extra qualified nurses already working in the NHS. The number of doctors has risen by nearly 5,000. By 2005, we will have increased the number of medical school places by more than 1,000—the biggest increase in a generation.
I could go on. However, all this seems to have passed by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey. We have heard again how, according to the Opposition, the Government are failing people in West Surrey, but that is not the case. Four million pounds has been invested in health-care facilities and community hospital services, £300,000 has been invested to open a 16-bed medical admissions unit at Royal Surrey County hospital, and Frimley Park hospital has received £525,000 for new X-ray and information technology equipment.
As part of our £20 million boost for revolutionary on-the-spot booking systems, both Ashford and St Peter's and Frimley Park, in conjunction with local primary care groups, have been chosen for pilot projects. Doctors will now be able to book dates for operations at times that suit patients. Two new primary-care walk-in centres have opened, serving Weybridge and Woking. These are new services, responding to the needs of the population and to changed life styles.
Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS trust is to receive a brand new trailer to further improve its breast screening services, and replacement ultrasound facilities have been provided. NHS Direct has proved a huge success. The right hon. Lady has described it as peripheral and frivolous, but nearly 12,000 people have called it in West Surrey. The calls were taken by Surrey Oaklands NHS trust.
Again, I could go on, but I sometimes fear that that serves no purpose. My son once said to me, "The fact that I can hear does not mean I am listening." I sometimes feel much the same here.
The positive steps that I have described show not only that West Surrey is able to offer its community modern services, but that the Government are prepared to match their plans for the NHS with extra investment in local services. Those services have been improved only thanks to the Government's commitment to modernising the NHS—a commitment that the Conservative party did its best to destroy.
I strongly believe that, in West Surrey and across the service, there are the courage and conviction to make changes—to face up to the needs of the population but also to respond to technological changes and changes in the way in which services are delivered. It is a tragedy that the only people who do not have the same courage are Opposition Members.
Let me say a little more about the independent panel. It is important to us for local consensus to be achieved: that is why the normal consultation process is supplemented by the panel's work. In some areas, I have seen it working to reach a genuine local consensus involving all stakeholders from different parties. I know that in West Surrey other political parties are engaging in constructive debates, asking what the best option is when choices must be made. That is what we are trying to achieve, and I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not agree with me.
We have presented a coherent strategy to address the problems that have been allowed to build up. We are not prepared to let any authority fail to meet its statutory duty to live within its means. Modernisation means a

reconfiguration of services, but always in the interests of the local population. The fact that we disagree with others does not mean that we are wrong. We are consulting local people, and have shown our commitment by investing extra funds.
I know that I keep returning to this, but the weighted per-head figure in the right hon. Lady's area is £706, which is well above the national average. Any accusation that we are starving the area of funds simply does not make sense.
I hope that all the politicians in the area will engage in constructive dialogue—I know that some already do—and will have the courage to face up to what change means.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.